Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9 November],
That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment to the Preamble, page 1, line 4, at the end, to insert the words—
'(2) By the Isle of Wight Act 1980 it was provided that the said section 5 should continue to have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972:'—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Debate further adjourned till Monday 20 November.

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL (By Order)

HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON) WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)

NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL (By Order)

Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.

To be considered on Monday 20 November.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, further considered.

Amendments agreed to.

To be read the Third time.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)

UNITED MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOLS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Monday 20 November.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 20 November.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] SUSPENSION

Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Messages [2nd November, 7th November and 8th November] as relates to the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill Lords], the Happisburgh Lighthouse Bill Lords], the Great Yarmouth Port Authority Bill [Lords], the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill [Lords], the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords], the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [Lords] and the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords] be now considered.
That this House doth concur with the Lords in their Resolution.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Wednesday 15 November.

PENZANCE ALBERT PIER EXTENSION BILL

Motion made,
That so much of the Lords Message [2nd November] as relates to the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill be now considered.
That the Promoters of the Penzance Albert Pier Extension Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall he presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall he laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Wednesday 15 November.

NOTTINGHAM PARK ESTATE BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Nottingham Park Estate Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office no later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);


That the Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Monday 20 November.

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Vale of Glamorgan (Barry Harbour) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Monday 20 November.

MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Medway Tunnel Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill

Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Monday 20 November.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (NO. 3) BILL [Lords]

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 3) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration had been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills;
That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Monday 20 November.

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the British Film Institute Southbank Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;


That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill' in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Monday 20 November.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceeding and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Monday 20 November.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next

Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Monday 20 November.

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL

Motion made,
That the Promoters of the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

To be considered on Monday 20 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Student Loans

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Eduation and Science if he has any meeting arranged with Scottish university principals to discuss the effect of student loans on Scottish four-year degree courses.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): No, Sir. The choice to undertake a course involving four years of study, in Scotland or elsewhere, necessarily involves a mix of economic and educational considerations. I do not expect the provision of additional support in the form of a loan to affect students' approach to that decision.

Mr. Salmond: The Minister must be aware that figures from within the Government's White Paper show that the cost to students in terms of the outstanding debt in opting for a four-year course, with current rates of inflation, will be 60 per cent. greater than for students taking a three-year course. Does that not represent a substantial disincentive to entering a four-year honours degree in Scotland? Does it not mean that the scheme is a fundamental attack on Scottish education itself?

Mr. Jackson: There must be something wrong with the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic. If he were to study under the national curriculum, perhaps it would be improved. Courses of all lengths are available in higher education in England, Scotland, Wales and around the world in countries where there are student loan schemes. Other countries have not found it necessary to introduce differential arrangements for different sorts of students. We have said that we are prepared to consider extending the repayment period in relation to the size of the borrowing. That sort of arrangement is common where student loans exist.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the major commercial banks have now agreed to join the student loan scheme and that he is not having second thoughts about removing students from the welfare system?

Mr. Jackson: I can reassure my hon. Friend on the second point: we are not having second thoughts about it. On the first point, a question later on the Order Paper will be answered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister fails to understand the significance of this for students who attend universities in Scotland. They include not only Scottish students, but a number of English, Welsh and Irish students, too. The four-year course in Scotland is much easier for students and produces much more academically qualified graduates. The extension of the loan period will in no way encourage students to come to Scotland or the students in Scotland to take up further education.
The Minister must look into this again—it is impinging on Scottish universities.

Mr. Jackson: Scottish degree courses last for four years instead of three because of the difference between Scottish Highers and A-levels. One quarter of all students in

Scottish universities come with A-levels from England and Wales and are attracted to Scotland by the quality of education offered there. I believe that they will continue to be so attracted, the introduction of student loans notwithstanding.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, demonstrate the worth of the four-year Scottish degree? Does he also agree that those who take part in such degree courses earn much higher incomes afterwards than they would otherwise have done, so is it not right that they should pay something back to society for those higher incomes?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One curiosity of the arguments that we sometimes hear against student loans is that they are premised on an assumption that the value of higher education to the people who go through it is so low that any element of repayment will deter them. That implies that higher education is of zero value to those who benefit from it, and that I cannot believe.

City Technology Colleges

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has for the expansion of the city technology college programme; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): Three CTCs are up and running and firm starting dates in 1990 and 1991 have been announced for a further eight colleges. We shall continue to build, with sponsors, on this excellent foundation.

Mr. Skinner: It is to be hoped that the Government will build in a better fashion than they have so far. When the previous Secretary of State announced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—the city technology colleges, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said that all or most of the money would come from private funds? Yet of the £19·3 million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—I have asked a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked, "Is the Minister aware?"

Mr. Skinner: To satisfy the House, I will say it again. Is the Minister aware that of the £19·3 million that has been spent, £16 million has come from public funds? If the Government have that sort of money to throw around, why not spend it on Bolsover schools and make sure that the little infant school in South Normanton has running water laid on for the toddlers? That is what they should do with the money.

Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have concluded that the more than £40 million already raised from sponsors—[HON. MEMBERS: "Raised?"]—already raised and pledged by sponsors for this exciting innovation—was a considerable achievement in a short space of time. He should be grateful to the sponsors who are adding to the Government funding for this exciting new scheme. It has many advantages of innovation, for inner-city areas and of improving the technology curricula. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would regard that as a success.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I, too, am concerned about the expansion of city technology colleges, although perhaps not in the same way as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? My concern is that there are not enough of them and that they are not coming on stream quickly enough—

Hon. Members: Question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The rules apply to both sides.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we should do more to speed up the building and introduction of these schools? What measures will he take to ensure that we produce more than 20 CTCs in the least possible time?

Mr. MacGregor: Twenty remains the target and the pace at which it is realistic and practical to move must be taken into account. Nevertheless, I should have thought that getting three schools up and running within three years, and the gathering of more than £40 million of private sponsorship, represents a considerable achievement.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that Tory-controlled county councils are protesting vehemently at having to enforce cuts in their education budgets in the coming year and given the massive demand for expenditure on teachers' salaries to restore the morale of the profession, will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no announcement tomorrow of increased capital funding of CTCs? Since the original plan is a failure, with the Government having to put up 80 per cent. rather than 20 per cent. of the money, may we have a stop to this separatist and elitist expenditure at the expense of the country's general education?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot announce in advance what will be said tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the scheme is a failure given that, for example, Kingshurst CTC had more than 1,200 applications for 180 places, Nottingham had more than 300 applications for 180 places and Sylvan has already had more than 480 applications for 180 places. All that shows a clear demand from parents for those schools, which cannot be regarded as a failure. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have increased the revenue support grants and spending assessments by a considerable sum compared with their equivalents last year, so there has been a considerable increase in local authorities' current spending on education in general.

Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the CTC concept is so good, attractive and necessary that all hon. Members should be taking steps to have one set up in their communities? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing to stop local education authorities setting up CTC-style schools if they wish to do so?

Mr. MacGregor: Some local education authorities are putting forward interesting ideas and I shall encourage them to continue to explore that thought. I should like more sponsors to come forward, but it is remarkable that we have already achieved more than £40 million. But the more sponsors that we have, the better pleased I shall be.

Mr. Fatchett: Is it not true that the CTC scheme has failed to attract private sponsorship and that that is why only £3 million of private money has been invested? Why did the Minister of State have to write to the Conservative

leader of Lincolnshire county council on 14 September saying that the Government and the CTC trust were unable to attract private sector support for a CTC in Lincoln? Is that a sign of the attractiveness and success of the scheme, or is it just a sign of the Government's further failure to attract private funding?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not see how the pledging of more than £40 million of sponsorship can be regarded as a failure. That is one of the largest examples of giving by the private sector to education for a long time, so I do not know how it can be regarded as a failure. With regard to Lincoln, one of the relevant points is that CTCs are meant to be directed at inner-city areas, and that is where we have been concentrating.

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding the proposed establishment of a city technology college in Telford.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I have received 14 letters following the announcement by the Mercers Company of its intention to sponsor a CTC in Telford.

Mr. Gill: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to publicise the fact that CTCs are not designed only for academically gifted children, and that children hoping to take A-level courses and go on to polytechnics or universities would do best to continue attending existing secondary schools? There will thus be no creaming-off from those schools.
Will my hon. Friend also take this opportunity to assure the House that further consultation will take place before the catchment area for the CTC in Telford is drawn up?

Mrs. Rumbold: As was clearly announced, the CTC initiative has always been intended to cover children of all abilities, directing its efforts particularly towards children who may need more technological education. We hope that A-level courses will feature as much as any other course. I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering catchment areas wider than those applying to ordinary local comprehensives.

Mr. Grocott: Is the Minister aware that I have received numerous representations concerning the proposed Telford CTC? I have them all here—the Minister is welcome to read them—and they are all against the proposal.
Is the Minister further aware that those objections have come not only from parents, teachers, pupils and school governors, but from churches, parish and district councils—Conservative and Labour—and the county council? Is it not time that she accepted the overwhelming evidence that the scheme would cause major disruption to the secondary school system which less than two years ago was approved by the Secretary of State's predecessor, and is it not time that it was scrapped?

Mrs. Rumbold: No, Sir. I understand that the sponsor, the Mercers Company, is looking carefully at all the responses that it has received from the local population—including the local education authority, head teachers and others—and that those responses will eventually be recorded and taken fully into account.

School Transport

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to review the regulations on payment of the costs of school transport.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend aware that the discretion to pay or not to pay the costs of a pupil's transport to and from a secondary school is being manipulated by some local authorities to inhibit parents' free choice of school? Will he ensure that that practice ceases, and will he say in particular what steps he will take to prevent it from interfering with the success of the policy of open enrolment?

Mr. Howarth: I am not aware of any examples of such deliberate manipulation by local education authorities, but if my hon. Friend can give me written evidence I shall take it very seriously and look into the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attaches great importance to parental freedom of choice, and looks to local education authorities to do all that they reasonably can to facilitate such choice.

Mr. Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be perfectly all right for any empty places on school buses to be filled by pupils from grant-maintained schools? Does he agree that certain local education authorities should stop obstructing grant-maintained schools on school transport matters?

Mr. Howarth: I very much hope that local education authorities will fully support the spirit of extending freedom of parental choice, which is an important part of the Education Reform Act 1988, and that they will act reasonably and generously when they feel able to do so.

History

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the teaching of history within the national curriculum.

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales are awaiting the final report of the national curriculum history working group, which they expect to receive by the end of the year. They will then publish their proposals for the history curriculum.

Mr. Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the interim report of the working group was greeted with shock and dismay by the many who believe that the causes and history of the second world war should be part of the national curriculum? After all, 1940 was our finest hour; why is it too fine for the history mandarins?

Mrs. Rumbold: I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposals of the interim working group have been looked at again by the history working group, and that the final proposals will contain full programmes of study on all the units, so that such matters can be taken fully into account.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister explain her previous answer? Does this mean that the national curriculum will contain the rise and fall of Nazism and the second world war?

Mrs. Rumbold: As I understand it, yes.

Sir John Stokes: Why cannot children be taught about England's heroes instead of vague subjects such as social trends?

Mrs. Rumbold: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's question. In our view, the facts of British history—the social, cultural and economic status of our history—are absolutely essential for all children who are studying the subject.

Mr. Straw: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the history syllabus is balanced, or shall we once again see the spectacle of education Ministers being rolled over by the Prime Minister and the advisers in the No. 10 policy unit who wish to turn the history syllabus into no more than a vehicle for the jingoistic, Right-wing indoctrination of our children?

Mrs. Rumbold: It is almost beneath the dignity of the Dispatch Box to answer that question. The history working group is advising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The National Curriculum Council will be looking at that advice. When the council has fully consulted on the report of the history working group, my right hon. Friend will take advice from the National Curriculum Council. Balanced history will, of course, be taught in our schools.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that the current trend among Caribbean parents to send their children back to the parents' countries of origin for a decent education will no longer be necessary when the national curriculum, including the first-class teaching of genuine history, is in place?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am very much aware of that. That is exactly the purpose of having the national curriculum and of introducing sensible history teaching in our schools.

School Records

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he gives to local education authorities about the rights of parents to see the school records of their children.

Mrs. Rumbold: In July my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State laid before the House regulations governing the keeping, disclosure and transfer of schools' manually held records on pupils. At the same time, the Department issued to local education authorities a circular describing the effect of these regulations.

Mr. Lloyd: I am genuinely grateful for the Minister's answer. In the context of the Conservative-controlled Trafford council, whose education committee recently reaffirmed its decision to keep secret and to prevent parents from having access to information relating to 11-plus testing will she confirm that such information will have to be made available under the Department's recently issued guidelines?

Mrs. Rumbold: I cannot add to the answer that the hon. Gentleman received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in his recent reply on that matter. From the date when the new regulation comes into effect, manually held records in schools will be made available to parents. Those records may include the information to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great concern felt by many hon. Members that although initiatives such as pupil profiling, records of achievement and assessment under the national curriculum have improved the quality of the information available to parents on pupils' progress, too often it is inadequately communicated by schools to parents? Will the Government look into the possibility of making written school reports at least twice a year mandatory on all schools, thus improving the relationship between teachers and parents, upon which good education depends?

Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government are committed to ensuring that sensible records of achievement by children are given to parents. Information should be given not just on their academic achievements but on their other activities in school, including community work and other matters that are of interest in the context of the school curriculum.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that Parliament originally gave powers for the regulations to be made nine years ago? It has taken nine years for the regulations to be made and they refer only to information which is compiled after the date of the regulations and not to information about pupils that is already held. Should it not be possible for parents to see information about their children that has been held in the past few years?

Mrs. Rumbold: The circular relates to the future—to 1990—but local education authorities are governed by the Data Protection Act 1984 and much of the information is kept on computer.

Drug Abuse

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance is offered by his Department to schools on making special provision for educating children in the dangers of drug abuse.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Schools are required to teach children about the harmful effects of drugs by the national curriculum science order. The Department has published "Drug Misuse and the Young", a booklet of guidance for teachers, and has funded the development of curriculum materials for use in schools. We also provide grant support for local authorities' drugs education activities.

Mr. Taylor: With the sickening evidence of the disaster that drug taking is causing in American schools, particularly with regard to crack, to which addiction can be almost instantaneous, will my hon. Friend provide even more guidance and resources to primary and secondary school teachers in Britain so that we can nip drug addiction in the bud?

Mr. Howarth: The Department has issued in bulk copies of a fact sheet on crack, with space for local information to be overprinted, to all drug education co-ordinators. It is for them to make a judgment about the

appropriate use of the material in local circumstances. We believe that campaigns and shock-horror approaches are likely to prove counter-productive and that the right approach is to provide education about drugs in the general context of health education which stresses the benefits of a healthy lifestyle and helps equip young people with the skills that they need to resist the pressures to abuse drugs and alcohol.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister accept that it is a very serious problem and that if we learn from the mistakes of the American Government, surely we must consider the possibility of establishing a drugs helpline with telephone numbers publicised in our schools and colleges? That would enable children and young people to telephone the helpline and would make the authorities aware of the extent and the amount of drugs in a particular locality, enabling them to target the resources where they are most needed.

Mr. Howarth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of monitoring the situation on the ground and providing the ready recourse to help and expert advice that he advocates. That is one possibility which I very much hope local education authorities will consider and which drugs education co-ordinators will have very much in mind. It is an example of information that could be overprinted on the fact sheet about crack that is being made widely available.

Mr. Rathbone: While welcoming my hon. Friend's answer and endorsing the Government's efforts to improve drug and health education in schools, will my hon. Friend pay further attention to the efforts of the Life education centres which were founded in Australia by the Rev. Ted Notts and which have done such a marvellous job? Does he agree that they could be adapted for use in this country to a much greater degree than hitherto?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there has been Government contact with Life education centres in a number of Departments. I plan to make direct contact with them.

Testing

Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will announce plans for testing at seven years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. MacGregor: The first statutory assessments of pupils at the end of key stage 1 will be in summer 1991—in English, mathematics and science. The arrangements will be set out in orders under section 4(2)(c) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Drafts of those orders will be published next spring.

Mr. Thompson: Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to read correspondence from headteachers of first schools in Northumberland that has been sent to him in the past two weeks complaining about the fact that they are understaffed, under-resourced, underpaid and cannot cope with the introduction of the national curriculum and local management of schools and now, superimposed on that, a testing system? Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be better to drop the whole idea?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the correspondence, and my hon. Friends and I will respond to it. I am


sympathetic with the point about the heavy amount of work caused by the introduction of the national curriculum. I am keen to ensure, so far as I possibly can, that its phasing in is compatible with schools coping with it. The national curriculum reforms have been widely welcomed, and we do not want to lose the momentum of that progress. I therefore do not accept that we should delay the programme for the standard assessment tasks, which is a crucial part of the curriculum.

Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. Friend make the assessments for seven-year-olds available to local authorities as soon as possible? He will no doubt be aware that in local authorities such as those in Lancashire, statements of educational needs are being supplied desperately slowly to parents because of inadequate resources from psychologists and because of lack of information from schools. In ensuring that assessments for seven-year-olds are readily available, will he speed up that process?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear that the draft orders for seven-year-olds' assessments will be published next spring. I am aware that teachers are keen to know more about what the standard assessment tasks will consist of. That is not the point that my hon. Friend made, but it is the point about which most teachers are concerned. The Schools Examination and Assessment Council will publish training packs to help primary teachers early in the new year. It is important, however, that teachers should recognise that the first trial of the standard assessment tasks in 1991 will not be reported. The first reported year will therefore be 1992. Clearly, there is time to get this right, and I am anxious to get on with it.

Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that teachers are concerned about their ability to teach the curriculum without knowing how it will be tested? Receiving test information nine months after the curriculum has started is not good enough. Will he assure hon. Members that the seven-year-olds' tasks will be assessments and not standard written tests, for which the Prime Minister has been asking?

Mr. MacGregor: Everyone was keen to get on with the national curriculum, but that inevitably means that everything must be done in an ordered programme. The standard assessment tasks will not take effect until the 1991 trial. I fully recognise teachers' desire to know what those tasks will be, which is why I am keen to get the training packs out early in the new year. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to desist from having private conversations.

School Transport

Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that local authority school transport plans are not restricting parental choice of school.

Mr. Alan Howarth: In December 1981, the Department issued a circular letter to all local education authorities on the relationship between school transport and choice of school. That advice is still current. A copy is in the Library of the House.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is my hon. Friend aware that sometimes the boundaries of catchment areas seem to be arbitrary and that it is possible for local authorities to deny free school transport by the simple expedient of not having a catchment area? Will he therefore undertake to review the present guidelines to ensure that no unfair discrimination is taking place?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has raised a particular case on behalf of his constituents, on which we are consulting the local education authority and which I shall consider very carefully. The Education Reform Act 1988 did not alter the duties and powers of local education authorities in relation to school transport, but we are most anxious to ensure that local education authorities, wherever they can, give parents practical support so that they can exercise an effective right of choice. As my hon. Friend asked, I shall keep the matter carefully under review.

Mr. Key: I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that as winter sets in the choice of parents is restricted not only by finance but by safety. I welcome the change in the law made by the Education Reform Act, but will he consider further extending the experiment by offering an education grant to local education authorities and schools under local management systems for schools to fund bus services, particularly in local areas, so that when they are not being used by pupils they can be used for the benefit of the community?

Mr. Howarth: I shall certainly reflect carefully on my hon. Friend's suggestion. He will be aware that the Education (No.2) Act 1986 requires that authorities should have regard to, among other matters, the age of the pupil and the nature of the route or alternative routes that he or she could reasonably be expected to take. That provision clearly asks authorities to have particular regard for safety.

Higher Education (Funding)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council on the question of funding higher education.

Mr. Jackson: This is one of the matters dealt with in the discussions we have from time to time with the funding council.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that Cumbria, especially west Cumbria, is exporting a high number of students for higher education to all parts of the United Kingdom? Will the hon. Gentleman lend his support to the provision for a far greater level of higher education within the county and, if necessary, lend his support to the establishment of a polytechnic if the demand for one is clearly established?

Mr. Jackson: The Government's intention is that there should be an expansion of higher education. The questions of how and where this should occur need to be considered further. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's proposal for Cumbria will be given serious consideration.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm his expressed intention of doubling the number of students in higher education? Within how many years does he expect


to see that doubling? What proportion of that number are expected to go into polytechnics? Does my hon. Friend have any plans to create new polytechnics?

Mr. Jackson: One of the Government's great achievements has been the increase of more than 25 per cent. in the number of students in higher education since we came to office—more than 200,000 students, a rise well above target. We know that because of the reduction in the number of 18-year-olds, we will find it difficult to do more than maintain student numbers in the 1990s. We expect a substantial increase in the demand for and supply of higher education as we go into the next century.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister now tell the House the answer to the question that he and the Secretary of State so miserably failed to answer during the student loan debates? How will the Government pay for this commitment to double the numbers over the next 25 years? Will they choose the route of entitlement and increased public expenditure, or will they take the path of privilege and introduce private tuition fees?

Mr. Jackson: It is the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party that have to answer the question about how they would pay for their proposals. The Government's answer is clear. We propose to introduce through the student loan a means to enable students to anticipate some of their income as graduates to help fund their higher education. That will enable an expansion of higher education to be funded.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although the PCFC has had an increase in funding of more than 6 per cent., it has offered only 2·5 per cent. to the excellent St. Mary's college in Twickenham, whose lack of enthusiasm for the PCFC is shared by me?

Mr. Jackson: I am looking forward to meeting my hon. Friend and his colleagues from his constituency later today when we can discuss the matter further. The way in which the PCFC allocates the resources provided by the Government is a matter for it.

Student Loans

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the letters he has received about student loans have agreed in principle with his proposals.

Mr. Jackson: Letters have expressed a variety of views on different aspects of our proposals. Many support the underlying principle that students in higher education should contribute to their costs.

Mr. Strang: Has the Minister seen the survey by Dr. Burnhill of Edinburgh university which suggests that for every student from a professional middle-class home who will be deterred by a system of student loans, five students from manual working-class homes will be discouraged? Is not that the experience of Sweden? Should not we be taking action to increase the number of students from working-class homes who, go on to higher education, rather than the opposite?

Mr. Jackson: I entirely agree, but that is not the experience of student loan schemes overseas. That experience shows that such schemes are compatible with

higher rates of participation by students from working-class backgrounds than we have achieved in 30 years of the most generous grants system in the world.

Mr. Rhodes James: How does the Minister equate the Government's proposals with the 1987 Conservative manifesto?

Mr. Jackson: I have no doubt that the Government's proposals are readily reconcilable with those in the Conservative manifesto, which said that there should be an expansion of higher education. This is a means of assisting with that. We should remember the words of the Robbins report in 1960 which said that
the arguments of justice in distribution and of the advantage of increasing individual responsibility
pointed towards the eventual introduction of student loans.

Mr. Straw: Can the Minister explain why there is an item on the tapes now that the Government have agreed a system with the banks regarding the student loan scheme? Why has no statement been made to the House today? Is the Minister aware that the banks themselves are now disowning the scheme? Lord Alexander of Weedon, chairman of the National Westminster bank has just written to me on behalf of NatWest to say:
We are in no sense promoting or supporting the introduction of the legislation on student loans".
Will the Minister comment on the fact that NatWest has now abandoned its support for the scheme?

Mr. Jackson: All the way through, our discussions have been punctuated by speculation about the attitude of the banks. Let us wait to see what it will be.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Frank Cook: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Cook: Will the Prime Minister explain why it is necessary for her foremost energy adviser, the noble Lord Marshall of Goring to resign, when the Ministers responsible for so many mistakes have kept their positions under her patronage, or is this just another factor that she finds incomprehensible?

The Prime Minister: Lord Marshall is considering his position in the light of the Government's decision. It is premature to speculate. It is a matter for the noble Lord.

Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the community charge is the fairest way to raise money? Does she deplore the new system that has been suggested by the Socialists—a combination of a property charge and income tax—which effectively means a snoopers' charter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that the community charge is the fairest way to make a contribution to local authority expenditure. It gives generous rebates—more


generous than those given under the old rating system. I notice that the Opposition agree that rates are totally unfair, but that they have not been able to find a successful alternative which has not been blown out of the water before they have got very far with it.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that she encouraged right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House last night, when she declared that:
We must stretch out the hand of co-operation, and develop new forms of association with the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe"?
Will she tell the House precisely what new ideas she has had to give substance to that fine declaration?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that we have trading agreements, through the Community, with some of those countries, for example, Hungary. We do not have an association agreement between the Community and those countries, as we have, for example, with Turkey. I thought then that it would be wise, as I thought that the countries of Eastern Europe would naturally wish to enhance their contacts with the West, to consider an association agreement between the Community and those countries.

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that answer. Is the right hon. Lady aware that she was also correct to remind everyone last night that Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Leipzig and Dresden—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that she was also absolutely right last night to remind everyone that Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Dresden and Leipzig are great European cities—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes a great deal of time. [Interruption.] Order. At this rate, I shall be able to call few Back Bench Members.

Mr. Kinnock: Should those great European cities—

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): Name them.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister think that those great European cities should continue to be the target for short-range nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: I pointed out over a year ago in the Bruges speech that Warsaw, Prague and Budapest were also part of Europe, and what a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not congratulate me on that. I do not believe that the events in eastern Europe would have taken place but for the staunchness of NATO. One could never rely on the Labour party to support NATO.

Mr. Kinnock: To give some validity to what the Prime Minister is saying, will she tell us whether those great European cities should be the target of short-range nuclear weapons?

The Prime Minister: We should stick by our agreements with NATO, which were signed by all NATO countries.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of that great and noble man, the late General de Gaulle, that Europe runs from the Atlantic to the Urals?

Will she give the House an undertaking that she does not see the European Community as being fulfilled until it runs from the Atlantic to the Urals?

The Prime Minister: The European Community is only one manifestation of the identity of Europe. There is a wider one and I do not think that we should confuse the two in any way. Most of us would now hope that democracy will soon run from the Atlantic up to the Chinese border at any rate and eventually beyond that.

Mr. Ashdown: Why is it that in her bleak and visionless speech last night, the Prime Minister sought to return Europe to that uneasy balance of power between the nations which has twice done such damage to our continent this century? Why is it that while the rest of Europe is on a march to unity through closer integration, she is seeking to lead Britain into increasing isolation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman speaks absolute nonsense. It has been the staunchness of NATO which has helped to see the birth of democracy in eastern Europe. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that our views have frequently prevailed in the Community and if he had looked at our record for getting down constraints in Europe, he would have found that we were way out ahead of many other nations in implementing the directives. I hope that he would also have agreed with what seemed to be the almost unanimous verdict in the House about a European monetary union of the kind proposed by Delors. It seems to me that stages 2 and 3 have been totally and utterly rejected by all parties in the House.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does not my right hon. Friend find it strange that Opposition Members, who played such an ignoble role in 1983 and 1984, at a time of great danger to the western world, should now be saying that they played some part in what has now been achieved as a result of what she and her colleagues did then?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that freedom would have come about or that there would have been the prospect of democracy in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union unless we had staunchly defended freedom through NATO, together with the essential part of the nuclear deterrent. As I pointed out in my speech last night, there was at one time a doctrine in the West that we had merely to contain Communism. After that, we put freedom on a peaceful offensive and it is partly that and partly defence that has led to the remarkable results that we now see in eastern Europe.

Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the continuing corruption of women and young people by British Telecom and its dubious associates, and Oftel's inability to do anything about it by means of regulations, could I offer the Prime Minister a deal? If I bring to the House an amendment to the Telecommunications Act 1984, will she instruct her Chief Whip to find parliamentary time for it while I provide a majority to bring it into force?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the substantive part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he knows that I would not interfere with the duties of Whips. [Interruption.] I


could wish that Opposition Members had more respect for the authority of their Whips on some occasions. It would greatly assist parliamentary business. Sir Bryan Carsberg, the Director General of Telecommunications has announced plans for closer control over premium rate services. He intends to introduce the new controls on 8 December, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman's help will not be required.

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the comments by the president of the Bundesbank in support of her view on the advantages of competition between the 12 European state currencies? Has she thought of discussing with our European partners the logic of expanding that idea to its conclusion—the evolution of a free market in currencies and banking such as existed in Britain before 1840 and produced the financial stability and low interest rates which were the foundation of our economic prosperity in the 19th century?

The Prime Minister: I confess that we had not thought of my hon. Friend's ingenious solution. As she knows, we have put forward alternative plans for economic and monetary union in the Community which would preserve the authority of this national Parliament. I understand that Karl-Otto Poehl has made supportive remarks about them and I hope that they will find much support in the rest of the Community.

Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that the arts are now suffering from their worst ever financial crisis because of a £40 million shortfall in the Government arts grant? How does she reconcile that with her comment when she first came to office that there would be no "candle-end economies" in the arts? Before the final curtain falls on the arts, will she help them out of this financial crisis?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, grants to the Arts Council have increased in real terms and a fantastic amount of sponsorship of the arts by industry has given great help to orchestras, theatres and many

artistic events. If the arts are popular—I fully support them and agree that they are popular—I hope that people will spend more of their own money on attending arts events as their standard of living increases.

Sir Bernard Braine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in this exciting, hopeful but still uncertain time, it is not rhetoric but deeds that count? What is her view of the need to give practical help to the emergent democracies of Poland and, in particular, Hungary?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my right hon. Friend's fundamental assertion that times of uncertainty can also be times of great danger, and that a wish to have democracy is nothing like having the capacity to set up that structure and get it working. We are already, both with the European Community and on our own account, giving practical help to Poland and Hungary in material terms. Help is also being given through the Community and we have relaxed some of the quota restrictions on trade for Hungary and Poland. That is practical help and we shall also consider further matters.

Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McFall: The weekend papers tell us that the noble Lord Marshall of the Central Electricity Generating Board will receive more than £300,000 as a pay-off for the Prime Minister's monumental blunder in not listening to her advisers when they told her to withdraw all existing nuclear power plants from the privatisation proposal. More crucially, when will the Prime Minister pay off the moral debt to adult and child haemophiliacs? Despite last night's vote, does she agree that all these adults and children are more deserving than the noble Lord Marshall because they are not responsible for the position in which they find themselves?

The Prime Minister: Should Lord Marshall resign, compensation will be a matter for negotiation according to his contract and will be carried out between the two people involved. With regard to haemophiliacs, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have made an ex gratia payment of £10 million to the Macfarlane trust. By virtue of their nature, many charitable funds have to go to those in need. £10 million was given to the Macfarlane trust, not all of which has been committed. When the ex gratia payment was made it was indicated that if it should be insufficient we would consider making greater payments to the fund. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I cannot comment on court cases from this Box.

Ambulance Dispute

Mr. Dave Nellist: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the letter sent yesterday afternoon by Mr. Tom Crosby, London's acting chief ambulance officer, and the threat to the accident and emergency service presently being offered by ambulance crews.".
Yesterday afternoon, a little after 3.30 pm, all 71 London ambulance stations received a letter warning the crews that if they continued to respond to direct 999 calls from hospitals, doctors, members of the public and even some police officers, they would not only be in direct contravention of management instructions, but would leave themselves liable for criminal prosecution for the theft of ambulances.
The precise words of Mr. Crosby's letter were:
Driving on the public highway in a vehicle taken without its owner's consent and without authorised (by a controller) insurance cover will conceivably be constructed as breaches in the criminal law.
That is not only blackmail of the worst order, but also continues to use the lives of sick and ill patients as a stick with which to beat the ambulance crews to accept a pay cut by tightening up the lock-out of ambulance workers in London. It forces ambulance crews to choose between their patients' lives and their own possible criminal prosecution.
If Mr. Crosby is serious, what does he expect to happen? Are the police to arrest the crews as they leave the ambulance stations on mercy missions? Ambulance workers will not be bullied. The more they are kicked in the teeth by Mr. Crosby and the Secretary of State for

Health, the more it brings them together. The action and determination of the caring women and men of this country's ambulance service is spreading.
If this urgent debate is not granted, a further week must pass before we are allowed to make a subsequent application. From midnight tonight, workers in Coventry, Warwickshire and the rest of the west midlands will escalate their action and, in their words, take the London road. As in London, the 999 service in my area will be preserved at all costs because accident and emergency crews are pledged to provide it, whether they are paid or suspended.
This escalation is the sole responsibility of a hard-faced and hard-hearted Secretary of State and his craven hireling, Mr. Crosby. Mr. Crosby should be sacked. The Secretary of State should resign. The Army should be withdrawn. The workers should be paid a living wage before the Government's tactics put yet another life at risk. I urge you to grant this application, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
The letter of Acting Chief Ambulance Officer Crosby and the provision of an accident and emergency service by ambulance workers.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 20, I have to announce my decision without giving reasons. I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said and, as he knows, I have to decide whether his application should be given precedence over the business already set down for today or for tomorrow. I regret that in this case, the matters raised do not meet the requirments of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, the Lobby was briefed on the basis that today we would hear a statement on the White Paper on community care. This afternoon, a written answer was deposited in the Library, which opens with the following sentence from the Secretary of State for Health:
I am pleased to be able to announce that our White Paper, 'Caring for People: Community Care in the next Decade and Beyond' will be published on Thursday 16 November.
As the House will immediately appreciate, Thursday is the one sitting day of the week on which it is not possible to make an oral statement to the House. That is presumably why that day was chosen. This choice of date is an affront to the House. In 15 years as a Member of Parliament I cannot recall a single occasion on which a Minister was prepared to say that a White Paper was ready for publication but will not be published until the day on which the House rises.
The House knows how pressing is this issue. It also knows from the press reports how controversial some elements of that White Paper will be, such as the proposal to put the home help service out to private contract. I submit that it would be an outrage if that White Paper was produced on the day on which the Secretary of State could avoid answering questions in the House.
As you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, it is the function of your office to defend the right of the House to challenge and scrutinise Ministers. I invite the representatives of the Government who are present, including the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State and the Chief Whip, to assure the House that, if it is not possible to produce this White Paper before Prorogation, the White Paper will not be published before the House sits again.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear them all at once.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support entirely what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has said. It is a scandal and an outrage that this procedure is being used. That is compounded by the fact that the press is now carrying reports that the Health Bill, which will be produced only six or seven days after the White Paper, will contain the Government's implementation of contents of the White Paper. Does that not show the contempt with which the Government are treating the House of Commons?

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the House will know, this White Paper arises from a statement that I made in the House a short time ago, setting out the policy and the Government's decisions in the light of the Griffiths report on community care. That statement was reasonably non-controversial. Large parts of it received a welcome on both sides of the House. It was my intention to produce this White Paper before the House rose, but I regret to say that it is still with the printers and it is not possible to produce it before Thursday this week.
The publication of this White Paper would not normally give rise to any need for a statement. Nor are its contents, as leaked by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), accurately described. The White Paper will follow quite naturally from the statement that I made a few weeks ago.
It was precisely to avoid allegations that I was trying to smuggle out the White Paper on the day the House was prorogued that I decided to answer that written question today and to acknowledge openly that it would not be possible to produce the White Paper before Thursday. I shall be in London on Thursday and shall be freely available, and if the White Paper produces a sensational new controversy, I look forward to answering in the usual way. However, I do not think that it will contain more than useful detail. It certainly will not enlarge the level of controversy beyond the very limited extent to which there is controversy around this statement at the moment.

Mr. Robin Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State may well be in London on Thursday, but the House will not be sitting on Thursday. That is the point at issue. I am entirely willing, if the Secretary of State is going to tell us—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter which touches on the privilege of the House. If the Secretary of State is telling the House that he cannot produce the White Paper today or tomorrow because of printing difficulties, that is entirely acceptable. However, I invite the Secretary of State to assure the House that the White Paper will not be published while the House is not sitting, and that it will be retained until an occasion when the Secretary of State can make a statement to the House and can answer questions in the House.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have spent about 18 months being accused of dragging my feet over Griffiths and community care and of not producing policy quickly enough. I am now producing a White Paper as readily as possible in line with the statement that I made to the House. Everybody wishes to know the detail of the policy, and the White Paper is being eagerly awaited. I do not propose to delay it and have explained the reasons why it cannot be produced before Thursday.
If the hon. Gentleman is alarmed by the reports, created by his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, that the White Paper is somehow about privatising home helps and the caring services, he can be reassured that it contains no such proposals, and that it is in line with the statement that I have given.

Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think than any further points of order can arise—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The whole House knows that this is not a matter of order for me—

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that this has really been a question and answer session across the Dispatch Box. It is not a point of order.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I will not—[interruption] I will not take it because it is not a matter of order for me. I will take any other points of order.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House written question No. 289 on today's Order Paper, on the Government's response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Brogan and others concerning detention under the prevention of terrorism legislation. This is a matter of such importance that my hon. Friends and I were astounded to learn that, not only has that written question been tabled—we believe it to be what is known in the House as a planted question—but the Government have used the written answer to make a statement on this most important matter.
When the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 was going through the House, as a member of the Standing Committee I recall that we were assured that, when the matter of permanent derogation came up, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would make a statement to the House. We believe that it is an abuse of the House that, yet again, the Government have smuggled out a most important decision on a day such as this under the guise of a written answer.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, it is not a matter for me whether questions are answered in the form of a written answer or not. It is not a matter of order. Whatever sympathy I have with having statements made in the House, they tend to greatly delay our business. I must remind the House that today we have a timetable motion, followed by opposed private business and then a prayer. The House will appreciate that the opposed private business can go on for three hours, whatever time it is entered upon, which might affect the time for the prayer.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take Mr. McNamara.

Mr. McNamara: I will bear in mind what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but what concerns me is that in their reply the Government talk about the threat posed by terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland and then state:
The power to hold terrorist suspects for a period of up to seven years"—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McNamara: Seven years.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It may be, but that is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is referring to an answer to a question.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker.: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Cryer: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, I will hear it.

Mr. Cryer: Do you recall, Mr. Speaker, that when, in the past, statements have not been made and publications have not been provided, there has been some difficulty with Black Rod getting into the Chamber and bringing the Session of Parliament to an end? Black Rod needs permission to enter the Chamber because of the age-old tradition that, as the representative of the monarch, Black Rod can enter only with our permission. If the Government do not provide information—it has happened in the past—the Commons might refuse Black Rod entry, and that refusal would be in order.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly hope that that kind of disruption would not happen—[Interruption.] Order. We establish the identity of Black Rod, but he has a right to enter the Chamber.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on a different subject?

Mr. Wallace: Yes. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that, often late at night, the House is invited to approve what in the past were called rate support grant orders and what are now called revenue support grant orders. In a recent revenue support grant instrument, a substantial error was made by the Scottish Office in regard to the amount due to the city of Glasgow district council. It is my information that the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to issue a statement in Scotland tonight on that matter. As there is an admission that one important error has been made, and as it is likely that other important errors may appear in measures passed by the House, do you agree that it would be more appropriate for the Secretary of State or another Scottish Minister to explain that error to the House and be available to be questioned about it?

Mr. Speaker: It may be more appropriate, but it is not a matter relating to order in the Chamber.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When making his application under Standing Order No. 20, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) raised the question of a letter from the chief of the London ambulance service—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman any further.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. I have told the House that, whatever happens tonight, opposed private business may go on for three hours. That will affect the prayer. I believe that, in the interests of the whole House, we should now move on.

Overseas Aid (Assistance to the Poorest)

Mr. Brian Wilson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 to ensure that the bulk of United Kingdom official development assistance is concentrated on the poorest countries and the poorest people living in them and that a substantial proportion of aid spending is devoted to agricultural rural development to benefit especially women and children; and to require the Overseas Development Administration to establish a timetable during which overall official United Nations aid targets may be reached.
My Bill sets out priorities and moral imperatives for overseas aid. It highlights the hypocricy of a Government who laud personal giving to the Third world but more than cancel that out with public parsimony. The Bill must be campaigned for in the short term and, under the next Labour Government, should be implemented. It insists that those in the refugee camps whom we can film, we can also feed. A wealthy country which fails to meet its responsibilities to the Third world exposes its own moral inadequacies.
The 1980s should have been a decade of advancement in the developing world. Instead, it has been a time of ever-increasing debt and of the negative transfer of resources from the developing to the developed world. Debt owned by the developing world now totals about £700 billion, an increase of one third in the last four years. In 1985, developing countries paid their creditors $29 billion more in interest and principal than they received in aid. Those trends are continuing. In other words, the situation is deteriorating.
As UNICEF recently disclosed, average family incomes in Africa and Latin America have fallen by between 10 and 25 per cent. since 1980. The poorest groups are the hardest hit. An increasing number are finding it more difficult to obtain even the basic necessities of life. Child malnutrition is now on the increase in most developing countries. Governments in debt must reduce their social services bills, which means reduced health care and less education.
Without falling into the simplification of citing goodies and baddies, it is clear that Her Majesty's Government must take at least some share of the blame. Since 1979, they have allowed Britain's aid programme substantially to deteriorate. In real terms, Britain's aid budget was allowed to fall by 36 per cent. between 1979 and 1987.
In terms of percentage of GNP—a crucial measure recognised by all donor nations—the figures are equally damning. In the last year of the last Labour Government, British aid had reached the level of 0·52 per cent., of GNP, and the United Nations goal of 0·7 per cent. of GNP was in sight. The incoming Tory Government reversed that trend and began to downgrade the importance of aid. It declined steadily year by year, until, by 1987, it had reached the miserable figure of 0·28 per cent. of GNP. In 1988, it made a small recovery, rallying to 0·32 per cent.
In theory, the Government are committed to achieving the United Nations target "when economic circumstances permit". The Prime Minister said that at the 1983 general election. We have since heard that phrase in a different context. In evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the Secretary of State for the Environment described the United Nations target as "slightly spurious". That reveals the true Tory attitude.
The decline in British aid as a percentage of GNP has reduced us from sixth in the league table of the 18 Western aid givers in 1979 to 14th today. Those figures should be deeply embarrassing, as other countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands seem to manage the target and those that do not are at least edging towards it. For instance, since 1979 Italy has increased its aid by 300 per cent., using the same criterion.
Clearly, the Government have no commitment to the 0·7 per cent. figure. That is why, in December 1988, Britain was criticised by other donor nations in the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development when it called on this Government to
reverse the downward trend in the United Kingdom's ODA/GNP ratio … and to make sustained progress towards the 0·7 per cent. ODA target.
Of course that target is achievable, and the Bill demands a timetable to achieve it. We hear much about the Government's budget surplus, part of which is being used to pay off the national debt. Surely that should be a lower priority than the opportunity to benefit the poorest citizens of the world. The next Labour Government will not confuse priorities, and will work towards the 0·7 per cent. target. It is not a "spurious" figure, and we will achieve it in the lifetime of one Parliament—five years.
It is not just the amount of aid which matters, but its quality, and the Bill recognises that. The Government have presided over a deterioration in standards. The last Labour Government had an enviable record in delivering effective aid where it was needed—in the poorest countries, among the poor and disadvantaged social groups. Those criteria seem to have been lost in the general downgrading of aid under the Government. The Government seem prepared to praise charity events such as Live Aid and Comic Relief, but when it comes to finding money themselves, their attitude changes.
It is astonishing that, despite the crisis in Africa in the past decade, and during a period of massive individual giving in this country, British aid to Africa suffered a decline of 26·5 per cent. between 1979 and 1987. British people are generous, but the British Government apparently do not share their concern. That is a tragedy and an outrage.
The Government do not seem to know the meaning of the word "quality" when it comes to aid. They are far keener on providing easy loans for middle-income countries, and on winning contracts for British exporting firms than on providing effectively targeted aid. Where they do provide funds, they can be way off the mark. For instance, British aid to Bangladesh has tended to be concentrated on large infrastructure and industry projects such as the electric power project for Dhaka. Yet the majority of the population live in rural areas, so it is difficult to see what they will gain from those projects. Aid needs to be properly targeted if it is to do most good. That is why we must reject the notion of the Overseas Development Administration as an adjunct of the Department of Trade and Industry. If the Government supported British industry at home rather than manipulating aid funds for use abroad, we would all be better off.
Of course there is a role for British industry in overseas aid and aid giving is not totally altruistic. British firms will gain from the export of necessary items. However, as the


Bill insists, aid should be targeted on the most needy. The Department of Trade and Industry should not be the master of policy.
Aid policy must be sensitive to environmental concerns and there should be a special place for women. There ought to be a women's unit within the ODA—as the Bill sets out—to take account of women's views and needs. In Africa, women form the majority of the food growers in the economy and their essential role in child rearing makes their importance for future development almost impossible to exaggerate. Yet, under the ODA United Kingdom aid programme, only one in six training places go to Third-world women.
We have a duty not only to make bilateral aid more effective. We have a key role to play also in multilateral aid, as over 40 per cent. of all United Kingdom aid is administered through international institutions. In 1987, £540 million of British aid went through multilateral institutions, principally the EC, the United Nations and the World Bank. The bulk of such moneys, however, is not used as efficiently as it could be. We are a major contributor to the EC—over half our multilateral aid goes to its European development fund and food aid programme. We should work towards an improvement in the administration of such aid. Far too much emphasis is still placed in the EC on large prestige projects. That, too, runs against the spirit of my Bill.
The overseas aid debate does not occupy a sufficiently high place on the political agenda. The problem does not lie with lack of concern at individual level, as is demonstrated by the response to the images of famine and despair when they are presented to the British public. It lies in large measure in the lack of information about the Government's niggardly role and the specific use of the aid programme. The Bill may help in a small way to stimulate debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brian Wilson, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Tom Clarke, Ms. Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. David Blunkett, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. George Galloway, Mr. Donald Anderson, Ms. Diane Abbott and Mrs. Ann Clwyd.

OVERSEAS AID (ASSISTANCE TO THE POOREST) BILL

Mr. Brian Wilson accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 to ensure that the bulk of United Kingdom official development assistance is concentrated on the poorest countries and the poorest people living in them and that a substantial proportion of aid spending is devoted to agricultural rural development to benefit especially women and children; and to require the Overseas Development Administration to establish a timetable during which overall official United Nations aid targets may be reached: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 15 November and to be printed. [Bill 220.]

Self-governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill

(ALLOCATION OF TIME)

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [3rd May] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall for the purposes of paragraph 13 of the Order [3rd May] be regarded as proceedings on an allotted day.

(2) The Order in which those proceedings are to be taken shall be Lords Amendment 18, Lords Amendment 25, Lords Amendment 80, Lords Amendment 1, Lords Amendment 66 and 67, Lords Amendment 81, Lords Amendments 83 to 88, Lords Amendment 2, Lords Amendment 40, Lords Amendment 44, Lords Amendment 62, Lords Amendment 65, Lords Amendment 92, Lords Amendments 68 to 78, Lords Amendment 9, Lords Amendment 47, Lords Amendment 52, Lords Amendments 56 to 61, Lords Amendments 63 and 64, Lords Amendment 79, Lords Amendment 91, Lords Amendments 93 and 94, Lords Amendment 3, Lords Amendments 5 to 8, Lords Amendments 11 to 13, Lords Amendments 20 and 21, Lords Amendments 26 to 29, Lords Amendments 48 to 51, Lords Amendments 53 to 55, Lords Amendment 4, Lords Amendment 17, Lords Amendment 39, Lords Amendment 10, Lords Amendments 14 and 15, Lords Amendment 82, Lords Amendments 89 and 90, Lords Amendment 16, Lords Amendment 19, Lords Amendments 22 to 24, Lords Amendments 41 to 43, Lords Amendments 30 to 38, and Lords Amendments 45 and 46.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the Order [3rd May], each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the end of such period beginning with the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order as is of the length specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE


Proceedings


Lords Amendments
Length of period


Nos. 18,25,80, 1,66,67,81,83 to 88, 2, 40, 44, 62, 65, 92, 68 to 78,9,47, 52, 56 to 61, 63, 64 79, 91, 93 and 94.
One hour and thirty minutes.


Nos. 3, 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20,21, 26 to 29,48 to 51, 53 to 55, 4, 17, 39, 10, 14, 15, 82, 89, 90, 16, 19, 22 to 24 and 41 to 43.
Two hours.


Nos. 30 to 36.
Two hours and thirty minutes.


Remaining Lords Amendments.
Three hours.

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made


by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings

4.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (I) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

The Bill has had a good airing in the House, in Committee and in another place, and it is appropriate that the House should complete its scrutiny today, so that it can complete its passage on to the statute book and the

country can begin to reap the benefits of the legislation. The purpose of the timetable motion is to enable the House to give proper and orderly consideration to the amendments made in another place, within a limit of time adequate for that to be done, and having regard to the relatively narrow range of topics covered by those amendments.

When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland moved that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, he said:
education does not consist only of what happens within school, and nor does what happens within schools interest only the teaching profession. The involvement of parents … is likely to bring results that will ultimately be to the benefit of the pupils themselves."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vo. 148, c. 622.]
Throughout the past decade, the Government have consistently taken a lead in giving expression to the rights of parents and developing their role in the education process. The Bill represents the culmination of that development, and when it passes into law it will have a powerful and beneficial influence extending throughout the school system. We have put parents to the top of everyone's agenda, and we may claim credit for that, without in the least detracting from the credit due to those authorities, such as Strathclyde, which likewise have read the signs of the times and are now developing policies of their own to involve parents in the education process.

The Bill is quite distinct from the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988, which now is being implemented throughout Scotland. It is distinct because school boards are intended for every school—the uptake of that facility has been heartening—whereas nobody is put under any obligation to use the provisions for self-governing schools who does not wish to do so. At the same time, the Bill can also be seen as a natural development from the 1988 Act. Some schools may well see the possibility of self-governing status in due course as a logical next step from the school board, but we have stressed repeatedly that we have no specific target for the number of schools that should become self-governing. Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), have made that point. The very existence of the option for a school board, however, will ensure that the parental point of view expressed through the board is heard with proper respect.

We do not expect school boards in large numbers to move immediately towards self-government, but we consider it right that the option should be seen to be available to them from the outset. It is therefore time to complete proceedings on this Bill and bring it into effect. It has already had adequate time for consideration here and in another place. We spent 127 hours on it in the Standing Committee, followed by a full day on Report to the House. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box in his new role, was not a member of the Committee, so I acquit him of responsibility for any aspect of its conduct. Suffice it to say that the Opposition were given ample, indeed generous, time, before the timetable motion and after it, to develop their arguments on aspects of the Bill that troubled them.

The Bill then had three full days of debate, a total of 18 hours, in another place, where the Opposition made a measured and constructive contribution. So I hope that


the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie will not rise to complain that the Bill is being rushed through with undue haste.

The Bill returns to the House with 94 amendments. Of those, between 50 and 60 are, on any view of the matter, technical or drafting amendments whose purpose is to make the Bill clearer. Another 20 or so are necessary consequences of other more substantial amendments. Only a handful of amendments deal with matters of any substance, and I shall refer briefly to one of the most salient of them to illustrate my point.

The Bill originally provided that a ballot of parents on self-governing status could be initiated either at the request of a specified number of parents or by a single resolution of a school board. That remained in the Bill when it left this House. We were of course aware that the procedure for acquiring self-governing status was, in this and other respects, different from that for acquiring grant-maintained status under the Education Reform Act 1988.

Our procedure is swifter, and deliberately so. For example, under this Bill a school board will be required, after a positive ballot result, to produce its formal proposals within one month; the corresponding period allowed under the Education Reform Act is six months. That difference has not been questioned at any stage. It is common ground between Government and Opposition that, if there is to be a proposal for self-governing status, the issue should be settled as quickly as reasonably possible. Prolonged uncertainty is likely to affect a school's morale and reputation.

However, this must be balanced against another need that has been urged on the Government at successive stages of the Bill. It is one that we have always acknowledged—the need to ensure that the parents who vote in a ballot have a proper appreciation of what they are voting for. It was with that in mind that we accepted the amendment in the other place—I hope that the House will agree with it later this afternoon—to the effect that, when a board has made a resolution to call a ballot, it must first inform the education authority and then allow between four and six weeks to elapse, after which it must confirm its first resolution if it still wants to proceed with a ballot.

This means that the issue will be out in the public domain and open to debate for a fair length of time before the ballot. There can be no doubt that any education authority would want to respond, to make its views known to the school board and—very likely—to the parents directly at this stage. The school board, too, if it is in earnest, will want to use this time to consult the parents who elected it and state its case to them—indeed, it is likely to be under pressure to do so. The board will have to take some time to reflect on its initial decision and hear the responses that come back before finally deciding whether to go ahead with a ballot.

This amendment illustrates two aspects that characterise all the amendments that we are to consider today. In the first place, it represents a Government response to a constructive point made in debate; on the other hand, it does not represent a radical shift of policy on our part.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend will know that, in England, some local authorities have bludgeoned and intimidated parents into

not taking up grant-maintained status. Is he taking that into consideration, and is he satisfied that the school boards will have enough resources to be able to convey their message equally forcefully to the parents?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. Of course the experience of colleagues south of the border is relevant to our consideration of this measure. I believe that we have made adequate provision in the Bill for my hon. Friend's point, but we shall certainly keep an eye on it. I would condemn any local authority that sought to bludgeon school boards or parents into changing their attitude to these important matters.
But we have not shifted policy in any degree in the amendments that we are bringing forward today. We are bringing forward a refinement and a clarification of policy rather than any new departure. In considering the Lords amendments, we shall not be asking the House to consider any new policy. The underlying policy has been thoroughly debated and settled in both Houses, and we are not here to reopen that debate.
I shall, if I may, refer to the other significant amendments more briefly to demonstrate my general point. There are amendments clarifying the significance of the ballot result. Let me again briefly quote my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading:
the ballot does not itself decide the question of opting out; it simply determines whether the process can reach the next stage.
My right hon. Friend went on to point out that, as Secretary of State, he
would of course take into account the proportion who had voted in a ballot … but I think it right to give most weight to the views of those who have chosen to exercise their vote either for or against the proposal."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148. c. 631.]
Simply in order to reach a reasonable decision, the Secretary of State will have to take account of all the information available to him about the situation of the school, and the ballot result is one—but only one—of the relevant factors. An amendment which the Government accepted in the other place gives effect to that.
There is also an amendment which gives effect to the policy that the Government had already declared, that a self-governing school should not be able, as a rule, to move to any change in its basic characteristics until it has been established as a self-governing school for at least five years. There is also an amendment which responds to an undertaking given to the Opposition in Committee to entrench a parental majority on the board of management of a self-governing school. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling welcomed the Opposition's conversion to that concept, and we have sought to give effect to their concern.
But all this is well-trodden ground. There are other aspects of the provisions on self-governing schools to which the critics have not given a great deal of attention. They have painted a picture of the self-governing school which would not be borne out by any dispassionate scrutiny of the Bill. The self-governing school has been portrayed as some kind of private enclave for a coterie of parents. But it is difficult to see how that is to be squared with the requirement on those parents to obtain mass support in a ballot, after a campaign which will extend


over several weeks and will be conducted with maximum publicity. Even if such groups do exist, they may be disappointed by the reality of the legislation.
We have made it clear, and the Bill makes it clear, that a school must continue to be just as much a public and community asset after it becomes self-governing as it was before. Boards of management will be under a specific statutory duty, for example, to promote the use of the school premises and facilities by the community.
It is also appropriate for me to refer here briefly to the other parts of the Bill. Part II, which was the subject of extensive consultation and discussion beforehand, has been found largely acceptable to both Houses. We have had some debates on some aspects of part III, but in the end those provisions have been accepted with little amendment.
We have now had two years of legislative innovation in Scottish education. That has produced a great deal of new material and new ideas for those involved in the education system to digest. The period that lies ahead must necessarily be one of consolidation, and I do not mean by that that it will he a period of rest or retrenchment, and certainly not of stagnation. I hope that it will be a time of positive and co-operative effort to take up and to put into practice the new developments made possible by the legislation.
There is common ground between the Government and local authorities on many things—on school boards, on development in the curriculum for the five to 14 age group, on the professional development of teachers, and on the management of schools and further education. I hope that we shall be able to work together vigorously on those things. The expeditious passage of the Bill's remaining stages will clear the way and set the scene for that to begin.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I thank the Minister for his welcome and, in turn, welcome him to his first debate as Minister with responsibility for Scottish education. On the surface, his rather winsome smile is preferable to the sneering and snarling that we have had for the past two years from his predecessor, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). He has now gone off to work with endangered species, which is rather akin to herding together the remaining Tory Members of Parliament in Scotland, letting in a rabid dog and throwing away the key.
The Minister comes to us fresh from his triumphs in electricity privatisation. It is difficult to imagine how someone so mild and inoffensive could cause such carnage: the present chaos in the electricity industry follows his early triumph with the poll tax. From poll tax to nuclear tax! Scottish education and Scottish enterprise had better watch out, for this man is the Frank Spencer of the Tory Front Bench, creating chaos wherever he goes.
I am new to the debates on this Bill—even newer than Hansard suggests. As we know, its records are impeccable, and it was therefore with some amazement that I read that I had contributed to the Report stage debate on 20 June. That would have been difficult, as I was in Washington with the Select Committee on Home Affairs at the time. Having read the record of the debates on the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee, however, I can only

pay tribute to the work of those who, unlike myself, are not new to it—the battle-scarred troops behind me, and the noble Lords Carmichael and Macaulay.
Opposition Members will resist the guillotine motion and fight the Bill to the last, because it was forged in dishonesty, and dishonesty remains its central characteristic. The Secretary of State stated explicitly at the time of the 1987 election that opting out would not apply in Scotland. He may have meant what he said then; that was before the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Stirling got to him. That is the trouble with having a bendy toy as Secretary of State: he puts himself and his career before Scottish education. He should have stood up and fought. Now his career is stuck; he is unhappy, marooned, shell-shocked and becalmed. More important, the Scottish people have been deceived. A Bill that has not even the flimsiest of Scottish mandates is poised to become law, simply because the Prime Minister imposed it on a half-hearted Secretary of State.
What is the purpose of the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is not to build on the roots of Scottish education, developing a policy based on Scottish culture and distinctiveness? The Bill merits longer debate because it is fundamental to Scottish education.
How do I square that belief with the knowledge that there is almost no desire for the Bill in Scotland? Let me explain. The same conflict exists in what the Tories are saying. According to the hon. Member for Stirling when he was responsible for education:
It is the most radical change in Scottish education for a generation or more, and I freely admit that. Its potential is profound and the benefits it offers are obvious to some already. In time, they will be widely recognised … people … will realise that they have a tool with which to reshape Scottish education to the great benefit of its users."—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 701.]
The present Minister responsible for education said on Sunday, in a television programme:
I actually don't think that opting out is going to be something that the vast majority of Scottish schools is going to get involved in. I would expect that relatively few will decide to opt out.
There is considerable conflict between those two statements. On the one hand, this is
the most radical change … for a generation or more".
I interpret that as meaning 30 or more years. On the other hand, we are told, "Let us not bother about this; it will affect only a few schools." Who is right? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is right, because the Bill gives the Secretary of State overwhelming powers over the development of Scottish education.
The major issue of contention in Scottish education is school closure: too few pupils and too many places. That issue must be faced by any responsible authority. The Bill gives to the Secretary of State the power to say which schools will close and which will stay open. We know how the Secretary of State will use that power. The Bill sounds the death knell for schools in areas that are struggling to provide a good education for their children. It makes sick the idea that the Secretary of State cares about deprived areas. It is one more kick in the teeth for local government after the poll tax. It removes from education authorities the ability to look at schools as a whole. Councillors will have to face the electorate and explain what is happening, but the power will be hidden away in St. Andrew's house.
There is not the slightest doubt that this is an attempt to bring back selection, despite the Secretary of State having said on Second Reading:


I can state categorically and without equivocation that the Bill is not designed to reintroduce selectivity".—[Official Report, 6 March 1989; Vol. 148, c. 625.]
I give to that all the weight that I would give to the statements of a salesman of very used cars.
In contrast, once again I believe what was said by the hon. Member for Stirling in The Scotsman on 6 April:
We are not prepared to rule out selection entirely.
That is what is behind the Bill.
I have read all the Committee's deliberations. The Under-Secretary of State could never bring himself in Committee to say anything good about comprehensive education. He was scornful of any academic research that showed that there had been real progress since the introduction of comprehensive education. For two years as an education Minister he sneered at the state system, thus depriving it of good morale. He said, "I do not think that the state system is any good and I am going to introduce a Bill to break up the system."
The Bill is, I believe, designed to break up the comprehensive system because of the sort of material that appeared this week in The Sunday Times under the heading:
Grammar schools to make a comeback after 20 years.
The article states clearly—after, I suggest, a leak from the Department of Education and Science—
The first new grammar schools in Britain since the comprehensive revolution began in the 1960-s will be created under plans to be revealed later this month.
What is planned will be spread over the border by the Under-Secretary of State.
In Committee there was much talk about choice, but the Opposition believe that the introduction of comprehensive education gave parents and children more choice than they had ever had before. We should like more comprehensive schools in order to give more choice. We should like comprehensive nursery schools to be provided. We should like more comprehensive training and more comprehensive adult education. That would provide choice. The Opposition believe that comprehensive schools can add on options by means of links with colleges and links between schools.
In itself, the term "comprehensive" is a misnomer. No school can ever be totally comprehensive in terms of subject, catchment area and age. There is always a compromise—about special schools, special gifts or list D schools. However, there comes a legitimate point when we have to say that we must hang on to the central core and idea of the comprehensive. It is impossible to have unfettered choice for some without denying choice to the great majority. At some point it must be said that the exercise of choice for some people is the denial of choice for others, and the good of the great majority is harmed by the choice of others, which is sometimes misguided. That is what happened in the past to senior and junior secondary schools where some people's ability was rewarded. The Minister uses choice as a means of breaking up the comprehensive system.
I am willing to abide by the choice of the Scottish people. I am willing to travel the length and breadth of Scotland with the Minister asking Scottish parents whether they want a development of the Scottish comprehensive or of opted-out schools. I am willing to submit to any objective poll on the development of comprehensives against his plan. Scottish parents would

overwhelmingly choose to support comprehensive education. Because the Government are seeking to deny Scottish people that choice, we totally reject the Bill. The Government know that there is no support for it. Because their proposals are anti-choice, anti-local government, centralised and imposed from outside, we should resist the guillotine motion, and the Labour Government of 1991 will repeal the Act.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I add my personal welcome to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) in his new elevated position, and express the hope that he enjoys it as much as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) did.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has made previous speeches on this subject, although he was not on the Committee considering the Bill; the matter was raised in discussions on the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 and the hon. Gentleman was on that Committee. In a famous reference, he suggested that the possibility of opting out for the Neilston primary school in my constituency because of a dispute over a possible extension to that school. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be disgraceful if Neilston received the extra allocation for that extension. I am always in the business of doing little acts of kindness for Opposition Members and it seemed to me that those sentiments should have a wider audience. He will be delighted to know that I quoted him in full to a mass meeting of the parents at Neilston primary school. He also attacked Paisley grammar school on the basis of spurious comparisons with schools in part of my constituency from which no one ever goes to Paisley grammar.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am a product of the Scottish comprehensive system and the allegation that the Bill is about breaking up the state system is wholly erroneous. Schools are not opting out of the state system; technically, they are opting into the state system from a local authority system.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about choice could apply equally to the parents' charter. I am glad, that in his first speech as Opposition spokesman on Scottish education, the hon. Gentleman has stated that his party is against the parents' charter.
Much of the debate in Committee was about the relationship between school boards and self-governing schools. There is need for an orderly debate for many reasons. One is to enable the hon. Gentleman to make his position clear about some of the issues raised in Committee, such as the famous Strathclyde report. The hon. Member for Fife, Central said:
I very much welcome this excellent report",
but it was not welcomed by every regional councillor in Strathclyde. One councillor said:
I am dismayed at what has come out here.
The Educational Institute of Scotland accused Councillor Charles Gray, the leader of the council, of working hand in hand with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). In turn, Mr. Charles Gray called the Strathclyde EIS officials
educated ostriches who did not represent the rank and file of teachers or the Labour movement".


Now the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie owes it to the House, the EIS and Mr. Charles Gray to tell us on which side of that argument he is, and I hope that he will have the opportunity to do so during the debate.
It is essential that the supplementary guillotine motion is agreed to get the Bill on the statute book, because the House is due to prorogue on Thursday, subject to satisfactory progress on business. Without the guillotine, satisfactory progress will not be made and the House will be treated to a repetition of what happened in Committee. The House should not be reassured by the fact that the amendments are mainly technical. In Committee, important clauses such as clause 15 on ballots hurtled through in 15 minutes, while technical clauses took hours. My hon. Friends who served on the Committee will recall clause 28 and that an undertaking was given by the Opposition that it would be delivered at midday on 25 April. It was delayed into the middle of the night, not because of a dispute with the Government but because Labour Members discovered that their amendments did not mean what they thought. Instead of admitting that and getting on with the debate, they continued into the middle of the night.
We should not believe that the guillotine is unnecessary because the Opposition are likely to accept the Lords amendments. That offers no reassurance of a short debate. In Committee, in the middle of the night, the hon. Member for Fife, Central moved an amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister intervened. Did he say "I shall consider this amendment"? No, he did not. Did he say, "This is a good amendment, but it is technically defective"? No, he did not. He said:
I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, so perhaps we can move on".
Move on we did not; Labour Members continued to talk about the amendment. Eventually, the Chairman said:
I am in the Committee's hands, but I find it difficult to understand why amendment No. 154 cannot be dealt with quickly".—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 25 April 1989; c. 1005–6.]
What happened? Labour Members went on, despite the fact that they had received a kindly warning from the Chairman and despite the fact that the Minister had accepted the amendment, which nobody had opposed.
The same happened when I moved an uncontroversial amendment that was suggested by the Scottish Consumer Council. The Opposition indicated support in principle for it, the Minister said that he would consider it and I said that I was content, but the Opposition, not unreasonably, said that they were not content. They wanted an absolute commitment from the Minister. The Minister was persuaded and said, "I shall accept the amendment," but what happened? Opposition Members went on and on.
Hon. Members may believe that the guillotine is not necessary because Labour Members will want to get home for the break, because they are reasonable people or because, given a free rein, they might run out of steam. The House should dismiss that notion. When Labour Members run out of steam, they will bring on, with the skirl of the pipes and choruses of gaelic songs, their ultimate weapon—the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). He persuaded the Committee of his considerable ability to speak at enormous length—obviously within order—about almost anything. Not only did he refine that technique but he introduced a new technique—the silent

filibuster. He stood up, but said absolutely nothing. He was firmly and fairly brought to order by the Chairman, who said:
Order. Let us be clear. The hon. Member must not stand without speaking, because it cannot be recorded in Hansard. It cannot be said that during the day, the hon. Member has shown a lack of words, but, if he has now run out of words, we may make progress."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 21 March 1989; c. 250.]
The events in Committee show why the guillotine is necessary.
The Bill is important. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred to the fact that it was not in the last Conservative party manifesto. It was not in the Eastwood manifesto either, but that was before the closure of Paisley grammar and the Catholic girls' school; fundamental questions were raised about the motives behind those closures in Strathclyde. Having said that, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is difficult to put any closure programme into effect and that Strathclyde was justified in trying to grasp these nettles.
The Bill is important not only because it gives Scottish parents the opportunities of choice but because it reassures them that they have an alternative. I believe that it will be to the great benefit of Scottish parents. I fully support the supplementary guillotine.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box.
This is no ordinary Bill. It is being forced to a conclusion with the use of the guillotine. Any Government who use this procedure should have proved their case overwhelmingly. That the Government have not done so is obvious. By introducing the guillotine, the Government demonstrate, once again, their disregard for the views of the Scottish people.
The Government have repeated their earlier guillotine on Report to stifle proper debate on issues of great importance to Scottish parents, pupils and teachers. The Minister said that the Bill had had a good airing, but the amendments come from the other place and are being rushed through. We should have proper time to discuss them because the Bill is opposed by the majority of people in Scotland. At no time did the Government tell us that they would introduce these measures.
We need more time to discuss how boards of management will take account of the needs and interests of the local community. We need more time to ensure that the future status of schools is not determined by a small, unrepresentative clique of parents who are singlemindedly determined to pursue their own narrow aims. We need more time to ensure that the basic characteristics of a school in regard to admissions policy cannot be changed without the express consent of the majority of the parents in the school and after a period of thorough reflection and democratic consultation. We need more time to ensure that the Secretary of State does not abdicate his responsibility for maintaining an integrated education system.
The Government have not been able to show how schools stand to gain by becoming self-governing. Will it mean a better building, a new school, playing fields or more books or equipment? No one can give us an answer. On the contrary, the key point is that funding for


opted-out schools will not mean extra money. The money will be deducted from the grant that the local education authority would otherwise receive for the school.
The Government may have little regard for the effect of their proposed changes, but I assure them and those on the fringes of the Scottish Tory establishment that they matter greatly to people who depend on basic education provision and who value a service that is available to all. In rural areas such as Argyll, the threat is apparent: there are already cuts and closures. Without a basic framework of schools run for the benefit of the entire community, rural communities may find it difficult to survive. Contrary to the Government's protestations, parents in rural areas do not have a choice of school to which to send their children.
Once again, we have a guillotine motion on Scottish legislation. Last night, on the car radio, I heard about the glitter, pomp and ceremony of the Lord Mayor's banquet. I heard the Prime Minister's words ringing out—about freedom to choose, human rights, the spread of liberty and genuine democracy. That has a hollow and hypocritical ring in the ears of the Scots, who have chosen to look after their own affairs, but are debarred from doing so by the Government.
Today we are not allowed to debate the Lord amendments properly. That is a telling sign of the Government's attitude towards the distinctiveness of the Scottish way of life which, in the words of a Welshman, Sir Alwyn Williams,
stems from an education system of historic merit".
The Government continue to treat the Scottish nation with contempt.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to his new responsibilities. Those of us who served on the Standing Committee enjoyed the company of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). Whether he enjoyed our company as much is a moot point. Perhaps it was due to the effectiveness of the contribution of English Members that the Scottish Labour party decided to promote an Englishman to be their spokesman—I know not—but I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities.
The debate is supposed to be about the guillotine motion. I consider that a guillotine is necessary. I read in the newspapers this week that the Labour party is putting it about that the Government's programme is "in a shambles". If it is necessary for the Government to impose a guillotine this late in the Session, it is simply because the Labour party Chief Whip has lost control of his own troops. For night after night during the past two weeks, small groups of Labour Members who represent mining constituencies have kept the House up late. Their speeches have been in order, but I doubt whether their contribution has been more effective than that of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)—the silent filibuster which we heard of earlier.
I have no doubt that with such highly controversial legislation—there cannot be an item of legislation on which there is a sharper political divide—all sensible hon. Members must hold the view that an early timetable motion for all stages of the Bill should be imposed.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be labouring under a delusion. He says that this is a highly controversial Bill, but there is no controversy about it in Scotland—the area to which it applies. There is no detectable support for the Bill in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should get that clear in his head.

Mr. Leigh: This is an enabling Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is no detectable support for it, presumably no schools will opt out of local authority control.
On three occasions I have put the question to the hon. Member for Fife, Central and on no occasion was he prepared to answer me. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, did me the great honour of thereafter referring to it as the Gainsborough question, and it remains unanswered. If this is such a controversial item of legislation that there is no support for it, why is the Scottish Labour party worried about it? Presumably no schools will opt out. The English experience has some relevance and value and it proves that the case is otherwise, as I shall show in a moment.
In legislation where there is a sharp political divide, it must be right to timetable early. I doubt whether anything new was said after the first 20 to 30 hours of debate in the Standing Committee. Labour Members on that Committee had to prove to their paymasters in the Scottish teaching unions that they were a robust and powerful Opposition, keeping the Tories up all night, and similar rubbish. Is there a single hon. Gentleman who has had—

Mrs. Ray Mitchie: Or hon. Lady.

Mr. Leigh: Is there a single hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady who has received a letter of complaint about the guillotine motion imposed this week? I doubt it. People outside care about the arguments and the issues, but they do not care about Conservative and Labour Members staying up all night engaging in filibusters and procedural debates.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Labour party's paymasters in the Scottish teaching unions. The teaching unions have been careful to obtain cross-party support for their stance. Can the hon. Gentleman name one that is affiliated or pays money to the Labour party?

Mr. Leigh: I shall deal with the Educational Institute of Scotland in a moment. I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will give me some credit for having sat with my hon. Friends through discussions on the Bill for over 100 hours and for knowing, therefore, something about what has been said on these matters by the Scottish teachers' unions. I shall deal with that in a moment.
I said that after the first 20 hours of debate, nothing new came out, but perhaps I was wrong. There was a perceptible shifting in the Labour party's position on these matters. Labour Members started by saying, as they have said this afternoon—the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) repeated the point—that there is no support for the proposals. When the original proposal for school boards was published, the Scottish Labour party opposed it. From the results in Scotland, one can see


that two thirds of schools, 70 per cent. of pupils and 80 per cent. of secondary schools will have school boards. Turnout in most areas was more than 55 per cent., which is higher than the turnout for most regional council elections, although those councils run education at present.
We can see, therefore, just as we saw in the debate on school boards, that we shall start to win the argument on the ground as the debate continues. If the hon. Member for East Lothian is right in saying that there is no support for the principle of opting out in Scotland, I must refer him to the English experience. Sixty-nine schools have been balloted and no fewer than 50 have opted out. That shows that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, there is considerable support for the principle of opting out.
Other interesting developments have taken place in recent months. The first national survey of parents' views on education was carried out in Scotland, having been commissioned by the Scottish Office. There were some interesting results which confirm all that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling has managed to achieve in his two years in office and Conservative Members congratulate my hon. Friend on all his work for Scottish education. The results are grim reading for the Scottish Labour party because they show that parents support choice of schools, firm discipline, testing, school uniforms, school prize givings and competitions, the regular appraisal of teachers, giving parents a say in what is taught and, to a lesser extent, how it is taught, giving parents some say in how the school budget is spent and more parental involvement through voluntary help in schools.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) said earlier, Strathclyde made an about-turn on the matter halfway through our deliberations, much to the chagrin of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). On 17 April, Strathclyde published a report saying that schools and colleges should have far more control over their own affairs, especially in handling their own budgets. It said that a slimmed-down Glasgow headquarters would deal only with future strategy, while the region's six divisions would handle operations in co-operation with local schools and colleges.
Our delight with what we heard was so great that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) suggested that the leader of Strathclyde regional council, Charles Gray, should be given a knighthood. Indeed, he was referred to in our deliberations as "Sir Charles Gray". The hon. Member for Fife, Central was rather surprised by the about-turn by Strathclyde, which undermined all his efforts and everything he had said in the first 10, 20, 30 or 50 hours of our debate. He was forced to say in the Glasgow Herald on 21 April 1989:
I very much welcome this excellent report",
although he said that the timing did "quite surprise" him. I am not surprised at that, because his position had been wholly undermined.
As the debate progressed over many hours, we saw that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had got it right and that he was in tune with what Scotland, Strathclyde and the parents whose views were reported in the survey wanted. Is it not sad that the Labour party has learnt nothing? It published a policy review which has had universally bad treatment by the press. Even The Independent said that the Labour party

is still influenced by the Fabian approach, under which things are done to people in their best interests, quote, independently of what they want themselves … Labour really isn't learning.
We are not the party which forces education policies down the throats of parents. We want to give parents initiative and choice.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is it not the case that the Labour party's policy is best summed up by its former education spokesman, the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) who said that what was good enough for his children was good enough for everybody else's?

Mr. Leigh: That is a disgraceful remark, typical of the old-fashioned Labour party that those of us fighting it have grown to know, love and beat in three successive general elections—and in a fourth one as well, no doubt. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is coming to a conclusion. This is a short debate.

Mr. Leigh: I am coming to a conclusion, but I cannot leave the hon. Member for Fife, Central alone without quoting him once more. On 23 February he wrote:
we have failed to properly develop the desires of parents to be more involved in their children's education; and we have failed to embrace the real and changing needs of education into a radical and imaginative agenda.
The words of the then Labour party spokesman are the words of a man who realises that his policies have failed. It is my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his successor who are now in tune with the wishes of Scottish parents.

Mr. John McAllion: There is little to which we should heed in the remarks of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), given that he knows little about anything that happens in Scotland, even to the extent that he assumes that the Conservative party has won three successive general elections there. I ask him to go away qietly and look at the Scottish election results in 1979, 1983 and 1987—during which time the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), has had quite a lot to say in Scottish politics—and he will see that the Conservative party has been rejected decisively by the Scottish people, as have the policies that it attempted to push through the House with the support of English Members who know nothing about the issues that are being debated in Scottish education.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said that, after 20 hours of discussion in Committee, little new was introduced into the debate. I ask him to consider the contribution of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He seemed to be highly entertained by his hon. Friend's speech, although it was the same speech that he made on 3 May 1989—six months ago—even down to the same quotation from the Official Report of the first Scottish Standing Committee on 21 March 1989. Any hon. Member who doubts that need only to look up Hansard of 3 May at column 251, and he will see the same speech that the hon. Gentleman rendered this afternoon. If ever there was an example of the poverty of the contribution made to politics in Scotland by the Conservative party, we have seen it this afternoon in the contribution of the hon. Member for Eastwood.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: If the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are at all interested in debating the amendments, what on earth is the point of that idiotic speech?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. and learned Gentleman obviously does not know what debate this is. We are debating a guillotine motion and there are no amendments for the House to consider. The hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to go back to where he came from, where he would probably find the atmosphere far more congenial.
The Labour party will continue to resist the Bill and the guillotine motion, as we have done throughout the proceedings on the Bill. We do so all the more because the political context in which the measure is being assessed has changed dramatically since the Bill was previously considered by the House. That change has important implications for the way in which its provisions are likely to be implemented in Scotland—if the Bill is ever allowed on to the statute book.
The provisions in the Bill are potentially radical. No one should make any mistake about that. We are considering giving individual schools in Scotland the opportunity to opt out of their education authority's control. For the first time for generations, and certainly in my life, we could see deep divisions in the provision of primary and secondary education. There is also the prospect of the return of academic selection for entry into local neighbourhood schools. Pupils could be denied the right to attend the school at the end of their street on the grounds that they are too dim. It was clear from the speeches of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and English Members in Committee that the spectre will be raised of doors being slammed on Scottish pupils on the grounds of their ethnic origin, sex or religious belief. Conservative Members made it clear that they wanted single-sex schools, Muslim schools and schools dominated by a particular religious ethos to the exclusion of any other.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he believes that Catholics should have the right to separate education but that Jews and Muslims should not?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman is not even aware of the changes to be made by the Government. Anyone will be able to gain entry to a Catholic school but will not have to attend any religious classes. That is not the case now. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman suggested that that should be the case in schools which opt out. That is what he and his hon. Friends have sought in supporting the Bill.
The Bill paves the way for the privatisation of further education colleges in Scotland by setting up private companies to manage them. In the process it dismantles the existing structure of pay and conditions for staff. It also establishes technology academies, based on the principle of creaming off the best and brightest pupils from Scottish education, and concentrates an unfair proportion of available resources on them. It reintroduces compulsory national testing into primary schools, which implies branding pupils as either successes or failures at seven and 11. The Bill introduces teacher appraisal, not as a means of strengthening career structures but to allow boards of management to weed out teachers whose faces do not fit—perhaps teachers who represent the EIS, progressive

teachers or those who put the needs of pupils before the prejudices of a minority of parents who dominate the board.
Conservative and Opposition Members agree that the provisions in the Bill are radical. Our disagreement is on their desirability. Are the changes necessary, given the state of Scottish education? The answer is no. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland about capital spending on primary and secondary schools in Scotland in the past 10 years. The answer provided by the Minister of State, Scottish Office was that this year, the Government have spent about half as much on schools in Scotland as the Labour Government spent in 1978–79. At current prices the Labour Government spent £108 million on primary and secondary schools in 1978–79 whereas this Government are likely to spend £57 million in 1988–89. What is necessary for education in Scotland is that the Government release resources to improve school buildings. The introduction of divisive and offensive measures which nobody in Scotland wants is unnecessary.
Are the measures in the Bill popular in Scotland? The answer is overwhelmingly no. At St. John's primary school in Alva, parents had themselves elected to the school board with the explicit intention of preventing any changes from being introduced through the medium of the school board. Some parents might have wanted the school to opt out of local authority control.
The evidence that we are considering is not only anecdotal. In the time that has elapsed since we previously discussed the Bill in Committee and on Report, huge press interest has been excited in Scotland about our consideration of the Bill. On occasions, the Committee proceedings seemed more like rival press briefings to put the message across in Scotland than serious examination of the Bill. Both sides were guilty of that. No one can deny that Scottish people are aware of the measures in the Bill.
Subsequently, there have been elections to school boards. They have focused parental interest on the Government's attempt to change education in Scotland. Since then, the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science has been elevated to the chairmanship of the Tory party, which, as he would argue, could mean an increase in Tory party campaigning in Scotland to put the Conservative message across. It is undeniable that the message is getting across to the people of Scotland. They have received it and they understand it—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings On the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary for the disposal of them, pursuant to the Order [3 May].

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 198.

Division No. 406]
[4.56 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Baldry, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bendall, Vivian


Amess, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amos, Alan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, James
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Body, Sir Richard


Aspinwall, Jack
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkins, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia






Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bowis, John
Hind, Kenneth


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bright, Graham
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Buck, Sir Antony
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burns, Simon
Irvine, Michael


Butcher, John
Jack, Michael


Butler, Chris
Jackson, Robert


Butterfill, John
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Churchill, Mr
Key, Robert


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Kilfedder, James


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knapman, Roger


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knowles, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knox, David


Cormack, Patrick
Lang, Ian


Couchman, James
Latham, Michael


Cran, James
Lawrence, Ivan


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lee, John (Pendle)


Curry, David
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Day, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dicks, Terry
Lightbown, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lord, Michael


Durant, Tony
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Emery, Sir Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Favell, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Madel, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Malins, Humfrey


Fishburn, John Dudley
Mans, Keith


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maples, John


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forth, Eric
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Freeman, Roger
Mates, Michael


French, Douglas
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gardiner, George
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gill, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, Sir David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Roger


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Monro, Sir Hector


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gregory, Conal
Morrison, Sir Charles


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Grist, Ian
Mudd, David


Ground, Patrick
Neale, Gerrard


Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Neubert, Michael


Hague, William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hannam, John
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayward, Robert
Page, Richard





Paice, James
Stevens, Lewis


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Patnick, Irvine
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Pawsey, James
Stokes, Sir John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Sumberg, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Summerson, Hugo


Porter, David (Waveney)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Price, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Thorne, Neil


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhodes James, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tracey, Richard


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tredinnick, David


Rost, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Rowe, Andrew
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ryder, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sackville, Hon Tom
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Walters, Sir Dennis


Sayeed, Jonathan
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Watts, John


Shelton, Sir William
Wheeler, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilkinson, John


Sims, Roger
Wilshire, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Speller, Tony
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Squire, Robin



Stanbrook, Ivor
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Stern, Michael





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Crowther, Stan


Alton, David
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Cummings, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cunningham, Dr John


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Darling, Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dewar, Donald


Beckett, Margaret
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Dobson, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Douglas, Dick


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Blair, Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boateng, Paul
Eadie, Alexander


Boyes, Roland
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Buchan, Norman
Fatchett, Derek


Buckley, George J.
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fisher, Mark


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Flynn, Paul


Cartwright, John
Foster, Derek


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fyfe, Maria


Clay, Bob
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Clelland, David
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
George, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Corbett, Robin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Gould, Bryan


Cousins, Jim
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cox, Tom
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)






Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, William


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Neill, Martin


Henderson, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hinchliffe, David
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Parry, Robert


Home Robertson, John
Patchett, Terry


Hood, Jimmy
Pendry, Tom


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoyle, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Illsley, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Redmond, Martin


Janner, Grevilie
Richardson, Jo


Johnston, Sir Russell
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Robertson, George


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Charles
Rooker, Jeff


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowlands, Ted


Lamond, James
Ruddock, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Salmond, Alex


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livsey, Richard
Sillars, Jim


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McAllion, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCartney, Ian
Soley, Clive


Macdonald, Calum A.
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Strang, Gavin


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McWilliam, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Turner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Srieffleston)
Wall, Pat


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wallace, James


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Walley, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maxton, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Meacher, Michael
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Michael, Alun
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wilson, Brian


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morgan, Rhodri
Worthington, Tony


Morley, Elliot
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mowlam, Marjorie



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.


Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Order of the House [3rd May] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall for the purposes of paragraph 13 of the Order [3rd May] be regarded as proceedings on an allotted day.

(2) The Order in which those proceedings are to be taken shall be Lords Amendment 18, Lords Amendment 25, Lords Amendment 80, Lords Amendment 1, Lords Amendments 66 and 67, Lords Amendment 81, Lords Amendments 83 to 88, Lords Amendment 2, Lords Amendment 40, Lords Amendment 44, Lords Amendment 62, Lords Amendment

65, Lords Amendment 92, Lords Amendments 68 to 78, Lords Amendment 9, Lords Amendment 47, Lords Amendment 52, Lords Amendments 56 to 61, Lords Amendments 63 and 64, Lords Amendment 79, Lords Amendment 91, Lords Amendments 93 and 94, Lords Amendment 3, Lords Amendments 5 to 8, Lords Amendments 11 to 13, Lords Amendments 20 and 21, Lords Amendments 26 to 29, Lords Amendments 48 to 51, Lords Amendments 53 to 55, Lords Amendment 4, Lords Amendment 17, Lords Amendment 39, Lords Amendment 10, Lords Amendments 14 and 15, Lords Amendment 82, Lords Amendments 89 and 90, Lords Amendment 16, Lords Amendment 19, Lords Amendments 22 to 24, Lords Amendments 41 to 43, Lords Amendments 30 to 38, and Lords Amendments 45 and 46.

(3) Subject to the provisions of the Order [3rd May], each part of those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the end of such period beginning with the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order as is of the length specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE


Proceedings


Lords Amendments
Length of period


Nos. 18,25,80, 1,66,67,81,83 to 88, 2, 40, 44, 62, 65, 92, 68 to 78,9,47, 52, 56 to 61, 63, 64 79, 91, 93and 94.
One hour and thirty minutes.


Nos. 3, 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20,21, 26 to 29,48 to 51, 53 to 55, 4, 17, 39, 10, 14, 15, 82, 89, 90, 16, 19, 22 to 24 and 41 to 43.
Two hours.


Nos. 30 to 36.
Two hours and thirty minutes.


Remaining Lords Amendments.
Three hours.

2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the remaining Lords Amendments;
(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—
(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental provisions with respect to certain proceedings

4.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to put it on record

that we are left with 15 minutes in which to consider 40 amendments to this important legislation. When he opened the debate, the Minister said that many of these amendments are technical, but the first group that we are about to debate contains some significant ones, including those relating to special needs. The system does not allow Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies adequate time in which to debate these vital issues. I want that clearly on the record. I ask you whether there is any way in which we can remedy this ridiculous situation.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Let me answer the last point first. There is no way in which I can make any alterations. I am bound by the resolutions of the House. Secondly, the hon. Lady is correct to say that we had very little time. These points of order are taking time from these important amendments.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Within the rules of the House, how is it possible for us to make an adequate protest against the fact that Scottish National party members were deliberately kept off the Committee considering this Bill, and that even the SNP Member who did serve on the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), was not allowed to participate in the guillotine debate? Ours was the only party not allowed to participate in the debate—not because we do not want to, but because the House does not allow us in.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No hon. Member is being deliberately kept off, and the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House when we should be moving on to consider important amendments.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask whether this contemptuous treatment of Scottish business and the debating of such important amendments in such a ridiculously short time was agreed through the usual channels?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The House has come to a conclusion on this resolution. At this stage, that cannot be changed.

Orders of the Day — Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAINTAIN SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 9, line 32, leave out "this section" and insert—
section 19(2) of this Act;
(aa) having regard to paragraphs 2 to 4 of Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, specify the respective numbers of parent members, staff members and appointed members who it is proposed should (with the person for the time being head teacher) constitute the board of management which succeeds the interim board of management;

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos 25 and 80.

Mr. Lang: I can tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that the Opposition said at an early stage in the Committee that they were looking to spending 120 to 130 hours debating the Bill, but we have spent about 160 hours doing so. It is not the fault of Her Majesty's Government that the Bill has not been scrutinised in full detail in all its clauses.
All these amendments deal with the principle of ensuring a majority of elected parents on the board of management. There is a little history to amendment No. 80, which I shall need to explain to the House. However, so as not to keep the House in suspense, I shall reveal the end of the story straight away: this amendment was introduced by the Government in direct response to pressure from the Opposition.
The Bill as it was when first introduced provided that, when a school became self-governing, the board of management should have the same number of parent and staff members as has the school board; that the head teacher was to become a full member and there was to be an increase in the number of appointed members. That meant that the parents would have lost their overall majority.
It was quite clear in Standing Committee that there was a will on all sides to preserve the parental majority as it will be on school boards. Indeed the Opposition moved an amendment to that effect. In response to that, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) undertook in Committee to consider whether boards of management should have an in-built parental majority, just as school boards will have. He also undertook to reconsider the provisions for the term of office of appointed members, a point on which the Committee did in fact make some amendment to the Bill. Amendments were made on Report reflecting the outcome of our reconsideration of

these matters; and since there was no opportunity to explain them at the time, I think it will help the House if I do so now. They provide the necessary context for the understanding of this group of amendments.
Although we needed little persuasion that there should be a parental majority, we do also attach importance to the provision that a board of management should have some increase over the school board in its outside representation. A board of management will have greater responsibilities than any school board can have; and it is likely to want to call on a wider range of experience among its members. However, if we increase the number of outside members and still want to have a parental majority there obviously has to be provision for an increase in parent members. That would be necessary in any case because the head teacher becomes a full member of the board of management, and that in itself would remove the parental majority.
Then a question arises. If extra places have to be filled by election, when will be the most convenient time to hold the election? Should one hold it during the run-up to self-governing status, or immediately after? This led us into a further consideration. If elections are going to have to be held in any case, it seemed to us that, for wider reasons, it would make sense simply to have new elections for the whole board. The change from being a school board to being a board of management is a considerable one, and individuals who may have been happy to serve on a school board, and even to support a proposal for self-governing status, will not necessarily want personally to take on the extra commitment and responsibility involved in serving on the board of management of a self-governing school.
It might also seem logical to get this new board elected and put in place as soon as possible after the decision has been taken that the school is to become self-governing. However we concluded on balance that this might complicate the transitional period unduly. There will be much to do for the management of any school during that period, in taking over from the education authority and preparing for the assumption of full responsibility, and it would be better not to add to that by a requirement to conduct elections and hand over to a new board.
Therefore, we concluded that the best and most convenient option will be to have the school board continue unchanged right through to the point where the school becomes self-governing. At that point, the school board will be incorporated as an interim board of management, and its duty will be to conduct elections to the board of management proper as quickly as possible and then to hand over to the newly elected board, whose members will in turn select the appointed members of that board. The board of management will thus be, in its composition, a slightly expanded school board.
That is the gist of the amendments which we tabled for Report and which were incoporated into the Bill as it left this House. Among them was this one which now appears as amendment No. 80 in today's list. It is the key amendment which discharges my hon. Friend's undertaking. However it was omitted by printer's error from the Notice Paper on the day of the Report debate, although it had been tabled and had appeared on the Notice Paper for the previous day. It was necessary therefore to table it again in another place, and that is how it comes to appear today as amendment No. 80.
I should have liked to explain to the House in more detail the implications of Lords amendments Nos. 80 and 25, but as the time for consideration is short, it would be sensible for me to finish—

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lang: I would rather not, because I am trying to save the time of the House. It would be sensible if I brought my remarks to an end.

Mr. John McFall: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing): this is ridiculous. Ignorant comments from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on Scottish education only exacerbate an already bad situation and increase the frustrations that the Opposition feel.
We are pleased that the Minister has taken the point that we made in Committee about the parental majority. He is right to say that we made that point. When the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 was going through its stages in the House, we were against parental majority. We are for it under the provisions of this Bill, for the simple reason that schools dealt with under the School Boards (Scotland) Act still retain a link with the local authority, whereas for the schools dealt with in this Bill, that link is destroyed. For that reason, we think that a parental majority will enhance the democratic process of governing the schools.
The Government have not adequately answered the question of what constitutes the community and what constitutes the appointed members. As it stood, the number of community members or parents could be overruled by appointed members. We are concerned about the wishes of parents. During the recess, I visited every primary and secondary school and spoke to the parents of children in almost every one of those schools. I got the message that there was not much interest in the Bill's provisions. I told these parents that the Government were interested in doing their business by stealth. They have a public agenda and a private agenda: the public one says that they are interested in parents, while the private one sets out their naked ideological objectives.
If the Government were interested in parents, they would have consulted parents in Scotland. The hallmark of the Bill is the lack of consultation with parents or public representatives. It is sad that the Under-Secretary who was responsible for the Bill has moved on, because he will not get his comeuppance. He has left it in the hands of his friends.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: He will lose his seat.

Mr. McFall: Yes, perhaps he will. He has left the Bill in the hands of the Minister.
I visited Dallas in Texas two years ago and looked at schools there. I was taken round many fine magnet schools. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stirling would say that that is the objective for Scotland. Yes, the schools were good, but that afternoon I also went to see the supervisor or superintendent of education in Dallas and said that it was true that the city had good magnet schools in literature, business and science and so on. However, when I asked him about the attendance figures for Dallas, he said that the official drop-out rate—that is what it is called in America—was 45 per cent., but unofficially the figure was 55 per cent.
That shows that, if the Government go ahead with the Bill and ignore the parental majority, they will be saying that they do not care about the majority of the population, only about the minority. That is what happened in Dallas. That view is underlined in the Government's philosophy towards education and society in general. That is why there has been such an outcry in Scotland against the provisions, and that is why we do not see the Bill as a liberating or enabling measure—that is just a kid-on from Conservative Members—because if anything, it is a centralising Bill.
Ultimately, the Secretary of State has all the aces. In this capacity he is nothing more than a Stalinist, because he is taking exactly—[Interruption.] No, I never called the hon. Member for Stirling a Stalinist—I shall leave that to other people—but this is a centralising Bill. The Secretary of State will have all the aces. He will say what each and every school can do. The Secretary of State is showing his naked ideology by looking at Scottish education and saying that, although local authorities may have served their communities well, because they are non-Tory, they will have to go.
Scottish education and the interests of our young people are being sacrificed for those narrow ends. That is the message that we must put across, even at this late stage. It would have been one thing if the Secretary of State and his Ministers had consulted the public, but there has been absolutely no consultation. That is why the Bill will be thoroughly rejected. The only chink of light is that the Secretary of State was good enough—if one can call it that—to retain the parental majority on the board, thus enhancing, or rather keeping some, democracy and community involvement.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Not only do we have the farce of a timetable being forced on Scottish Members of Parliament as a result of the hypocrisy of Conservative Members, but the new Minister at the Scottish Office, who is responsible for education, is not prepared to allow one hon. Member who served at length on the Committee and who spoke at length, moving many amendments—which is more than the Minister did—to intervene to ask a simple and straightforward question.

Mr. Lang: rose—

Mrs. Ewing: It is only because of that that I have to rise to put that question to him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The Minister has spoken at length about the procedures, resolutions and ballots, but I wish to pursue him on the issue to which the Secretary of State gave voice on Report. Will there be encouragement from the Scottish Office for a moratorium between the establishment of a school board and the possible holding of ballots on opting out? The Secretary of State suggested that he would not encourage that procedure in the first one or two years of the establishment of a school board. When the Minister replies, please will he make clear the time scale that we are talking about? Will school boards be able to start that procedure almost immediately, or will there be a moratorium?

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Amendment No. 80, on which the Minister has asked us to focus as the most important in this group, sums up much of the deception underlying the whole Bill. The amendment purports to enhance or to increase democracy in the Bill,


but we know that the Bill is nothing less than a diminution of local democracy and of genuine community control over our schools. As my hon. Friends have said, that is what the Bill is about.
The Minister said that once schools became selfgoverning—I believe that I am quoting him—they would be "just as much a public and a community asset as before". How can that be when the Government are removing any powers, control or influence that the community may have over such schools when they become self-governing? If there is no community control and no community say, how can the community influence community use of the new self-governing schools?
What is happening is not an enhancement of local democracy, but a reduction in local democracy because communities are being stripped of any democratic outlet or expression that they have over the conduct, future, or fate of self-governing schools.
The bizarre concept underlying the amendment, and, indeed the whole Bill, is that, in some way, the local education authorities do not represent the democratic will of their communities, that they stifle or distort the will of the people and what they want in the schools in their local education authority area. That bizarre concept—that local education authorities are somehow undemocratic but that the new self-governing schools will be democratic—is absolutely bizarre—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then designated Lords amendments Nos. 65 and 94 as appearing to her to involve questions of privilege.

Lords amendments Nos. 65 and 94 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 25, 80, 1, 66, 67, 81, 83 to 88, 2,40, 44,62,92,68 to 78,9, 47, 52, 56 to 61, 63, 64,79,91, and 93 agreed to.

Clause 13

INITIATION OF PROCEDURE FOR ACQUISITION OF SELF-GOVERNING STATUS

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 6, line 24, after "board" insert
(a "first resolution")" to hold such a ballot and confirm that decision by a resolution (a "second resolution") passed at a meeting of the board held not less than twenty-eight days, nor more than forty-two days, after that at which the first resolution was passed".

Mr. Lang: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20, 21, 26 to 29, 48 to 51 and 53 to 55.

Mr. Lang: The amendment requires a school board to pass two separate resolutions, the second in confirmation of the first, before it may call a ballot of parents on self-governing status, with a period of between four and six

weeks between the two resolutions. The other amendments in this group are all consequential, to deal with references later in the Bill to a resolution of a school board calling a ballot. Immediately on passing the first resolution the board must, under the terms of subsections (6) and (7) of clause 13, inform the education authority and, where the school is a denominational school, the denominational body concerned.
I said something about this amendment in speaking on the timetable motion earlier, and I should like to enlarge on it now. I note that the Opposition moved a rather similar amendment in Standing Committee. They did not develop their reasons for it at the time—indeed, they subsequently withdrew it—and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), quite properly in the circumstances, dismissed it with a brief explanation of why we did not think it necessary to follow the English legislation in this particular. He stressed the desirability of keeping the opting-out procedure as short as possible, and I think that it has been accepted on all sides that at any rate the procedure should not be unduly drawn out.
A good deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then, however. Immediately after that amendment was disposed of, the Committee moved on to a discussion, which eventually was quite wide ranging, of the whole procedure leading up to a ballot, and particularly about how voters in a ballot should be made aware of the significance of what they would be voting for or against. There were, for example, amendments discussed on the lines that voters should be given a statement of the views of the staff at the school or that they should be given a kind of prospectus by the school board, outlining how the school would be managed, and under what policies, if it became self-governing.
I think that it is fair to say that those debates served to inform everyone's thinking, on both sides of the House and outside Parliament as well. Amendments were made both in Committee and on Report which are relevant to this matter. My hon. Friend accepted an amendment from the Opposition which was designed to guarantee that voters were given the information that they would reasonably require in order to make a decision in the ballot and, in response to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) we introduced a new clause on report, which is now clause 17, designed to ensure that a local authority cannot use its superior financial resources to swamp the voters with propaganda, and to provide that the school board, if it is so minded, shall have a reasonable sum available to it to promote the case in favour of self-governing status.
5.30 pm
The amendment was tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Carnegy of Lour, with Labour support, in another place and was also seen as relevant to the same general concern when it was discussed in another place. The House may therefore find it helpful if I set the amendment in the context of how we see a ballot being conducted.
It is clear that when a school board decides to call a ballot, the matter will instantly become news. There is no possibility of the ballot being, as it were, conducted by stealth. Obviously the parents must be informed, but even before that, the education authority must be informed as soon as the board's resolution is taken. Likewise, the staff at the school—even if they do not receive a formal


communication from the board, as one would expect them to do—will hear of the decision from their representatives on the board.
Both the education authority and the staff will certainly have views on the matter. They will want to make them known to the board but, even more, they will want to publicise them and communicate them direct to the parent voters. Those actions will occur irrespective of whether we legislate for them. At the same time, the school board will itself almost certainly want to put its case to its constituents. Even if it did not do so, the parents would surely demand to know what their board had in mind.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Perhaps the Minister will now answer the question I asked earlier about a moratorium between the establishment of a school board and the possibility of moving towards opting out.

Mr. Lang: The provisions of the Bill are for no moratorium between the establishment of a school board and the starting of the procedure towards opting out; it can set in motion the procedure, if it thinks it appropriate when it is constituted. But that process, as I have been describing and could describe in greater detail, is likely to take several months before reaching a conclusion.
As I was saying, the school hoard will almost certainly want to put its case to its constituents. Even if it did not do so, the parents would surely demand to know what their board had in mind. There are provisions under the School Boards (Scotland) Act under which a board is required to communicate with parents as often as seems to be necessary about matters which are its concern; and there is provision also for parents to requisition an open meeting with the board. So the machinery is there.
We plan shortly to issue guidance to school boards, in addition to the general circular which we have already issued in draft, specifically on the details of the procedure for acquiring self-governing status. We shall reinforce there the message that it is desirable that a board should be as open as possible with parents about what it intends. In particular, we shall encourage boards to give parents the opportunity to express their views and discuss the issue at open meetings before the ballot is held. That, we think, is by far the most effective way of ensuring that parents get a chance to understand what is involved when they come to cast their votes.

Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to address the House when there is not on the Government Benches another Member who represents a Scottish constituency?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair to resolve.

Mr. Barry Porter: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My father is a member of the Liverpool Scottish. Will that do?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lang: We believe that the process that I have described is by far the most effective way of ensuring that parents get a chance to understand what is involved when they come to cast their votes.

Mr. McFall: The Minister has spoken at length about consulting parents. The message that I am getting is that,

even if parents pass a vote of no confidence in a school board, that board need not take any notice. Until school boards have some accountability, there will be no faith in this legislation.

Mr. Lang: As the proposition about opting out would have to be put to the parents in a ballot, the parents would have an opportunity to express their view clearly and decisively in the context of that process.
In that context, the procedure required by the amendment will be a positive help. It guarantees that, in addition to the period that must elapse between a decision to ballot and the holding of the ballot, there will be at least four weeks' of public debate on the issue. In addition, at the end of that period the board is given an opportunity to reconsider its position, in the light of the feedback that it will have had from the education authority, from the staff at the school and from the parents who elected it. At that point the board will be free to decide whether it still wants to go ahead with a ballot, and it will have to take a positive decision, ratifying the earlier one, if it still means to go ahead.
The amendment will be wholly beneficial to the process from any point of view, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Like others, I have questions about the balloting of parents. The Minister said that parents would be informed—by methods that have yet to be revealed. He agreed that parents' meetings would be the ideal places for such information to be given. How will parents be notified? Is it possible that notifications of such meetings, or even the ballot papers, will lie at the bottom of school bags along with crusts of bread and empty crisp bags for perhaps several weeks? If the Minister has more precise proposals, will he tell us about them?

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood): I support the Minister's remarks and wish at the outset to thank him for including clause 17 in the revised Bill. He will recall that, when I intervened in his speech in the guillotine debate, I expressed concern about sone of the experiences in England and Wales and said that such experiences had not filled one with confidence that the local authority would not use its overbearing power to intimidate—I used the word "bludgeon"—parents. The Minister has shown the Government's commitment to parental choice.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I hope that the Minister will make it absolutely clear that he will not allow to happen in Scotland what has been going on in England. For example, The Birmingham Daily News wrote:
Opt-out school banned by city council
and under that headline noted:
More than 1,000 Birmingham youngsters have been banned from using the city's libraries because their school has opted out".
Such disgraceful behaviour must not be repeated in Scotland.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the attention of the House because it illustrates the pitfalls that can face schools when the local authority seeks to be overbearing.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for two English


Members—who are interfering in our proceedings, anyway—to discuss a purely English matter on what is a Scottish subject?

Madam Deputy Speaker: This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. All voices will be heard.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to you for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I remind Opposition Members that although they may accuse us Englishmen of interfering in Scottish affairs, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) could be seen rushing down the corridor to participate in and vote on English matters.

Mr. John McAllion: I left to take part in a Division on the Local Government and Housing Bill, a measure which affects my constituents in Scotland as much as it affects the people of England.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman could not resist the temptation to vote on matters concerning England and Wales.
The Minister has shown the Government's commitment to ensuring that both sides of the argument on this matter are fully explored, and I can think of no fairer system that could be introduced in this legislation. Let us not forget that the Bill is permissive. It imposes no statutory requirement on schools in Scotland to opt out. It is not draconian. It enables parents to reach a decision for themselves. It shows a genuine concern by the Government for parental choice.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said that we were concerned with the wishes of parents. Although the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) initially described as excellent the Strathclyde regional council's document, that document was widely rejected by the Labour party because it flew in the face of Labour's policy, which was enunciated only a month later, and that was comprehensives all round. It did not seem to wish to see the diversity of education provision in Scotland.
We are left with confusion on the Socialist Benches. Although the Opposition apparently welcome the amendment, the thrust of the Labour party's policy on Scottish education has been to return to the same grey uniform policy of "Take it or leave it. We the politicians know best", which was the policy that it brought before the nation in the 1960s.

Mr. Sillars: Irrespective of party divisions, I, like most other Scottish Opposition Members, am sick and tired of hearing lectures from people who are grossly ignorant of the history and development of Scottish education and its achievements.
Ayrshire decided to move to a comprehensive system at the same time as Enfield in England, but the experience was different. There were major problems south of the border, but there were no major problems north of the border, where the comprehensive scheme was implemented and has been a shining success ever since.
We in Scotland agree with comprehensive education, because it fits in with the egalitarian nature of the body politic in Scotland. If Conservative Members from south of the border are interested in Scottish education, they should visit our comprehensive schools to see the variety of education provided for children and the considerable

stimulus given to them during their school life. They will see the degree of commitment that has existed for generations among Scottish teachers because they believe in the philosophy that underwrites Scottish education. The only time that that has been broken was during the dispute between the teachers' unions and the minority Government represented by the Minister. He did more damage to Scottish education in a few months than Attila the Hun could have done if he had come over and roamed about the place.
Unfortunately, we are under the pressure of a guillotine, but will the Minister tell me about amendment No. 3? I want to know whether I am correct in saying that a school without a school board cannot opt out. It is a great tragedy that we have reached this late stage before some hon. Members have had an opportunity to ask Ministers for elucidation.
Most Scottish people would like the television in the Chamber to be live tonight so they could see that they are reasonably well represented on the Opposition Benches. They would also see that at one time there were no Scottish Tory Members present. There are now two—the Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). More importantly, I would like the television cameras to be on when the Division bell goes and the Conservative Benches begin to fill up with English Tories passing through into the Division Lobby to vote us down irrespective of our point of view, even though we represent the majority opinion in Scotland on this measure.
The position is becoming a farce. The Government will pay heavily for that farce when the House is televised and Scottish people do not need to rely on us to tell them that we can win all the arguments but that we are overwhelmed by the arrogant and ignorant English Conservative Members who do not give a click of their fingers for the Scottish people. However, their day of reckoning will come.
I was pleased that the Minister nodded when I asked that key question. We should spread the word throughout Scotland that, if there are no school boards, there can be no opting out. The Government have inserted the necessity for a school board because their ultimate objective in Scottish education is the privatisation of some schools. There must be a mechanism to take us into the interim phase of school boards and opting out and then on to the the final phase of the objectives set down by the ideologue, the chairman of the Tory party in Scotland the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).
We should tell the Scottish people and parents and those who will be parents that, if they want to prevent the ultimate privatisation of our education system, they should not go down the road of the school boards.

Mr. McAllion: The last English Conservative Member who spoke—the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth)—finished his peroration with the observation that the Labour party argued that politicians know best. That could not be further from the truth. However, it could not be more apposite to describe the way in which the Tory party in Scotland operates. It has been overwhelmingly rejected by popular opinion in


Scotland, but the Tory Government continue to push every one of their prejudices down the throats of the Scottish people, irrespective of what those people think.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the Bill says that it is the parents who will decide? The Secretary of State is not imposing on Scottish parents the requirement that they shall move to self-governing status.

Mr. McAllion: Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a ruse on the part of Conservative Members to continue to argue that this is permissive, not statutory, legislation. The Government would not impose statutorily on schools within education authority control a requirement that they should all move to direct control by the Scottish Office. If they did that, they would be treating all the schools the same. The basis of the legislation is that some schools in Scotland will he treated differently from others. That is why it is permissive. It is to allow some schools to opt out, while the rest remain under education authority control. It is designed to allow schools that opt out to be given more capital resources and more revenue resources and to receive more favoured treatment by the Government. That is why the legislation is permissive. No Opposition Members are convinced by the Government's arguments.
I was interested in the response that the Minister made to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) when she asked whether there could be moratorium on the time between a school board being established and any possibility of that school requesting opting-out status. The Minister said quickly, "No." He said that because those schools are to opt out from August 1990 onwards. If there were to be a two-year moratorium, it would take us beyond the next general election. Thereafter, there would be no possibility of any schools opting out, because the Government will not be in power after 1991 or 1992, and nor will this legislation which they have imposed on the people of Scotland.

Mr. McFall: On the finances of opted-out schools, my hon. Friend will remember that, in column 237 of the Standing Committee report, I asked the Minister about the finances that would be available to schools for opting out. He told me that the finances would be no more than those presently received from the education authority. However, in The Daily Telegraph, this week there was a report about the opting out of schools in England, where a number had been given more than they had received from the education authority. There were no apologies for that from the Secretary of State for Scotland. They will receive more because privatisation is on the agenda. It is bribery, and nothing else.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend is right to describe what is now happening in England—

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. McAllion: I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, as he has made his own speech.
The Minister responsible for education expressed concern about the provisions in the Scottish legislation not being as tight as those for England and Wales. The Minister explained that that was why the Government were accepting this group of amendments. I welcome that back-pedalling when I compare it with the position that

was taken by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), in Committee.
It is refreshing to witness this change of tack and the change in personalities since the Minister of State has taken over responsibility for education. It suggests that he accepts, at least in part, the fundamental argument that was advanced by the Opposition in Committee. We said that, when the Bill left Committee, the way was open for a small clique of parents to hijack school boards and thereafter to hijack hoards of management and to take schools out of education authority control without the approval of the majority of parents with children attending those schools. I am glad that the Minister says now that he wants to ensure that parents properly appreciate what they are voting for. That is something that never concerned the Under-Secretary of State.
We are told now that, before a ballot takes place, the education authority will have to be informed. Four or six weeks will have to pass before a second resolution is passed by the school board announcing its intention to hold a ballot. The Minister made his intention clear when he said that the education authority and the school board would want to conduct what he said—I took a note of what he said and I may not have recorded his words exactly, but I have the drift of them—would be several weeks of campaigning, with mass publicity, to ensure mass support for whatever proposals came forward from the school board thereafter. I believe that those were the words that the Minister used, and I find them somewhat optimistic.
When the Minister was questioned about the resources that would be made available to school boards and education authorities to allow them to indulge in mass campaigning on the issue before the parents that would be the subject of the ballot, he was more than vague in his reply. He gave no guarantee that additional resources would be made available to the boards or the authorities to enable them to conduct the campaigns which the hon. Gentleman now says are necessary if ballots are to have any meaning in the context of whether schools should opt out of local education authority control.
The Minister's position is flawed for another reason. It ignores the secondary importance which is attached in the Bill to ballots of parents. The Minister referred to the outcome of any such ballot as a positive statement of parental opinion. What does he mean by that? Does he mean a clear majority of all those who are entitled to vote in the ballot? We tried again and again to get a ministerial response to that question in Committee, but we remained unsuccessful.
It remains unclear what the Secretary of State for Scotland will regard as a positive statement of parental opinion. The Minister of State has repeated the statement that the Secretary of State for Scotland will make to those who have chosen to express their vote. There is still the possibility that, after a publicity campaign and a ballot has been held, a clear minority of parents who intended to vote for opting out will be regarded by the Secretary of State as having made a positive statement of parental opinion, thereby allowing the Government to say that the school should opt out of education authority control.
On 3 May, when we were dealing with the guillotine motion, the Secretary of State made a comment which may be helpful to both sides of the argument. He said that he wanted to ensure the right of local communities to control their school structure, that being one of the finest


traditions of Scottish education. I think that everyone will agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately, nothing in the Bill guarantees that that tradition will continue. It will still be possible for a minority of parents to win a minority vote in a ballot and thereafter to secure the support of the Secretary of State in allowing the school to opt out of education authority control. That is unjust and undemocratic, especially in the context of current Scottish politics.
I remind the Minister that, since the Bill emerged from Committee, there has been a change of opinion in Scotland. The Scottish people are listening to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling and paying attention to the debate on education in Scotland. The opinion polls show that support for the Labour party in Scotland stands at 55 per cent. while support for the Tories is only 18 per cent. In other words, the Tories have sunk even lower than the depths to which they fell during the 1987 general election. That is because measures of the sort that we are confronted with in the Bill have been forced down the throats of the Scottish people.
The Scottish people have been denied the Parliaments for which they have voted in successive general elections. They have been denied also the opportunity to vote in elections by a Prime Minister who is now running scared of a stalking horse in the Conservative parliamentary party. At the same time, she is running even more scared of the electorate outside this place. The Scottish people can express their opinion only through opinion polls and local government elections. They have done so again and again and have made it clear that they do not want the legislation that is being introduced by this Government. The democratic voice of the Scottish people has been heard. They do not want the Bill. If the Minister listens to the people of Scotland, he will withdraw it.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) has again done the House a service by giving an entirely ignorant description of the history and merits of Scottish education. It is not renowned for its worth because of comprehensivisation: it is renowned because there are few other systems which have more successfully seen parents determined to encourage the education and excellence of their children. If we examine the encyclopaedia of those who have been successful in the world—

It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the timetable motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 8, 11 to 13, 20, 21, 26 to 29, 48 to 51, 53 to 55, 4, 17, 39, 10, 14, 15, 82, 89, 90, 16, 19, 22 to 24 and 41 to 43 agreed to.

Clause 27

RECURRENT GRANT IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 17, line 22, leave out
in implementation of the authority's duty".

Mr. Lang: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 36.

Mr. Lang: I am pleased that these amendments have come before us today. They are concerned with technicalities of the financial arrangements for self-governing schools which provide for children with records of needs. But beyond that, they give the House the opportunity to take stock of the totality of the benefits and safeguards which the Bill contains to ensure that no child with special educational needs will be worse off when a school, be it a special school, a mainstream primary school or a secondary school, achieves self-governing status.
It is true that the Bill as originally presented did not provide specifically for special schools to elect to become self-governing. The problems of doing so, although not insurmountable, appeared difficult and, at that time, it was thought best to defer tackling them immediately. In Committee, however, Back-Bench Members argued persuasively that parents of children at special schools should not be denied opportunities given to others by the Bill—so persuasively, in fact, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) voted for the amendment to include special schools and agreed to introduce further amendments which would support it. Let it not be forgotten that this amendment was tabled by various members of the Committee, and originally by the Opposition, not by the Government. The Government bowed to the wishes of the Committee.
In making arrangements for recurrent grant for special schools, the changes that we made to the Bill also deal specifically with the provision for children with records of needs who are accommodated in mainstream schools. Mainstream placement of these children is becoming increasingly common and most schools which become self-governing are likely at some time to have such a child on their role.
The Bill now ensures full funding for the education of recorded children attending self-governing schools. It provides for discussion and exchange of information between the board of a school and the authority so that agreement can be reached on the level of provision to be made and the cost of that provision.
I have heard it said by the Opposition that when a special school ceases to be under education authority control it will mean that the authority's strategy for special educational needs will be destroyed. But that will not happen. The purpose of the dialogue to which I have referred is precisely to ensure that the self-governing school will continue to play its full part in that strategy. We made it clear that the range of provision for special educational needs is a characteristic of a school which may not be changed except by a ballot of parents and with the consent of the Secretary of State. I assure the House that, save in very exceptional circumstances, I do not envisage that consent being given when the existing level of provision needs to be maintained as an essential element in -the arrangements for special educational needs in the area of the education authority in which the self-governing school is located.
6 pm
We do not stop there; we wish schools to be progressive in this area. Schools are therefore given a positive duty to consider improvements in provision for special educational needs. To help that, the Bill provides that an extension of such provision is not to be regarded as a change in the characteristics of the school, and the balloting procedures and so on need not be operated.
Perhaps the most important aspect of our approach, as set out in clause 27, is the reassurance that it will give to parents of children with learning difficulties. They have been concerned that self-governing schools might be tempted to marginalise special educational needs and divert the resources so urgently needed by their children to other purposes. That cannot happen. The agreement between the authorities and the schools will earmark the resources needed and will guarantee that the identified provision will be made by the school. In essence, priorities for special educational needs will be agreed and implemented.
Although the Bill will protect this area of expenditure, we have taken steps to ensure that the arrangements are not inflexible. Much has been made by those who do not want special schools to be given the same rights as others of the difficulty that schools and authorities might have when predicting needs. I readily accept that that will not be easy and that a school believed likely to be the most appropriate placement for a recorded child may not ultimately be found to be so. Variations may increase or decrease the level of need at a particular self-governing school.
We have therefore provided in clause 27(6) for agreements to be varied at any time during the financial year. Once a variation is agreed, the recurrent grant will be altered accordingly. Thus, on a change of plan involving a recorded child, the resources that it was proposed to use at the intended school could be transferred to the school that the child is attending. I hope that the House will agree that the outcome for children with special educational needs has been satisfactory.
I believe that the provisions now in the Bill show that we should have taken the bull by the horns and included special schools from the outset. Moreover, we have at all stages had a great regard for the special needs of children with learning difficulties, and I am bound to record that in part III of the Bill, as well as in part I, this concern has transcended party barriers. The humane and sensitive—not to mention long—debates that we have had on this issue at all stages of the Bill's progress have shown the work of the House and that of another place in the best of lights.

Mr. Tony Worthington: These procedures have been outrageous, and this manner of dealing with important Scottish business will be short-lived when vision returns to the Chamber—we cannot wait.
When I read the report of the Committee's proceedings I was reminded of the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) dealt with hecklers at a meeting who were giving him a bad time. He responded to rent-a-mob by telling them that they had made a grave error by underestimating his insensitivity. That is what has happened with this Bill.
It never occurred to anyone that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) could possible consider that special schools could appropriately be included in the opting-out procedures. The Opposition will never again underestimate his nastiness. We shall never, for instance, table an amendment stating that we should privatise the air that we breathe, because the hon. Member for Stirling would accept it.
However, even the hon. Gentleman realised eventually that there was something special about special schools and that it was inappropriate for them to opt out, but he became persuaded in Committee that special schools should be included. This is a valuable service—it is not generally criticised—for a vulnerable group of people and, of necessity, it must be provided over a wide area. I can think of no sort of institution more prone to being taken over by a small group.
I am sure that all hon. Members have shared my distressing experiences at constituency surgery whenever a new theory of special education comes along. It might come from the Centre for Human Achievement; it might have to do with conductive education; it might be almost anything. The parents of these children have been dealt a raw deal by life and they hanker after any solution that is offered.
For example, the hon. Member for Stirling paid a single visit to Hungary and came back enthusing about conductive education. I make no comment on the virtues or otherwise of such education; it should be considered, but it is disturbing that, because of a passing fad, a relatively small group of parents might be able to change the nature of a school and impose on it a theory that might turn out to be wrong, with all the consequential difficulties.
The other reason why the proposal for the opting out of special educational schools is so offensive is that the greatest virtue of special schools lies in their links with the services provided by the local authority and the health board. Needlessly to introduce difficulties into these links might make it difficult to obtain services of occupational therapy, psychology, speech therapy, social work, nursing and transport. The Minister has admitted that this is going to cause greater complexity, and it is a foolish and regrettable step.
We need to examine the admission criteria of special schools. When there is a parental influence over a school, the parents tend to believe that the school is for children like their own, thereby excluding those who do not fit in. I have heard of schools rejecting wheelchair cases because of the problems that that would present for the other children. Local authorities with strategic responsibility for an area must take a position on this. It is offensive that tiny schools providing services to a large geographical area should be able to distort the services that are available to others in that area. That will destroy the coherence of the services for special educational needs.
We welcome many of the improvements in the Lords amendments, but I and my hon. Friends want to register our sense of outrage at the way in which this matter has been dealt with and at the sheer insensitivity of the Minister. We shall come to regret the day when this Bill was passed, and we shall have a sense of shame that this clause is part of a Scottish Act.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am pleased to be able to speak on this group of amendments. As those hon. Members


who served on the Standing Committee will know, because of my background a great deal of my time in Committee was concentrated on special schools and special needs.
It was with great sadness in Committee that I saw people with special needs become a political football. Whatever the Labour party's faults in picking up an amendment that was originally submitted by the Scottish Parent Teachers Council, The hon. Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who are not present, were more despicable in picking up the amendment and not speaking about special needs, special schools or handicapped children, but playing a neat party political point and ignoring a key issue.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) did not follow the example of the Conservative party chairman in England and Wales and ensure that special schools were exempted from the Bill. The Minister was foolhardy to allow himself to be manipulated by his acolytes on the Back Benches into going down that road, which was far in excess of what we have seen from the Department of Education and Science.
We are dealing with one of the most vulnerable sections of our society. Parents with handicapped children are deeply concerned about their children's education, whether there will be a facility for them within the local community or whether their children will have to be transported elsewhere.
Children in my constituency have to travel from Elgin to Aberdeen, where they stay for the week and then return home at weekends. To turn this into a party political issue is despicable. It is one of the lowest levels of behaviour that I have ever witnessed in Committee in all the years that I have served in the House.
The Lords amendments improve the Bill, but they go nowhere near recognising the real concerns of parents. It is unfortunate that we did not have the opportunity to discuss records of need, a matter which was dealt with in amendments Nos. 65 and 72. For the benefit of those organisations which will be reading our deliberations, if they have not heard them, it is worth putting it on the record that those amendments came after about 17 others and were followed by another 30, yet we had all of 10 minutes to discuss the group. Amendments Nos. 65 and 72 were important, but they were not even given an airing in the farcical situation of the guillotine being imposed.
The Minister should remember that schools establishing units dealing with children with special needs, or trying to involve them in the day-to-day life of the school, will face major expenditure, whether it be for access for the physically handicapped or for the purchase of equipment to deal with a child's handicap. The Minister should read some of the articles produced by the Royal National Institute for the Blind or the Royal National Institute for the Deaf on the type of equipment that is needed and how expensive it is. Will additional capital grants be made available to self-governing schools which provide continuing access for handicapped or disabled youngsters? Capital requirements are important.
If a school becomes self-governing, the danger is that the board of management will decide that it is not worth buying a piece of equipment for a child with a specific handicap and will suggest that the child goes to another

school. Such a child may then be removed from the family, yet the family is vital to any child with special needs. They, more than any other child, need to return to the love and warmth of their home within the community.
I am deeply concerned that, whatever reassurances may be mouthed at the Dispatch Box, the guarantee that currently exists that specific handicaps will be provided for, either through special schools or through special capital grants, will no longer be available. I hope that the Minister will comment on that when he replies.
The Minister said that a great deal of consultation has taken place on how best to cope with various comments made in Committee and on Report. Will he tell us exactly what consultation has taken place with those organisations with specialist knowledge of handicapped children? He will recall that, on Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) referred to a letter dated 2 June from Mr. Cunliffe, responding to points that I had raised in Committee. That was a Friday, so I presume that it reached the various organisations, most of them voluntary, on Monday 5 June. That letter asked them to reply no later than Tuesday 13 June. Is the Minister talking about a similar pathetic attempt at consultation? I would have much more respect for the Minister if he would list the organisations to whom he spoke.
What assessment was made of the needs of children in Scotland and of the provision for the training of teachers in what is a highly skilled area? Those teachers have been the most deprived of in-service facilities. There have been cuts throughout the history of remedial education and further cuts in learning support. Fewer and fewer people are being trained in those areas. What consultation did the Minister have with the colleges of education on the provision of teacher training in those areas?
6.15 pm
I could raise many other aspects on this group of amendments. I am genuinely angry at the way in which the Government treated the issue in Committee, on Report and in the other place. There has been no genuine commitment to even understand the extent of the problem that exists. I doubt whether the Minister has even read the survey published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys pointing out the number of disabled people who exist in Scotland. I doubt whether real cognisance has been taken of the extent and depth of the problem. He has not given the most vulnerable in our society the real assurance they need, that, under this legislation, facilities for any handicapped child will be available, where possible within their community and, where that is not possible, that at least grants will be made available to help parents when residential education is needed.
I am not convinced that the Government have taken those points on board to any great extent. I shall support the amendments, but with much concern and reticence, because they do not go anywhere near meeting the needs that exist.

Mr. McAllion: I share the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) about the way in which the matter was dealt with in Committee. The consideration of special education should not descend into petty party-political point-scoring as it did in Committee. It is regrettable that, in introducing the amendments, the Minister continued the tradition set by the hon. Member


for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) of trying to turn this into inter-party political bickering. The matter deserves much more serious consideration.
Sometimes the Minister and his hon. Friends give the impression that they have decided to allow special schools to opt out of education authority control, not because that would be best for the children who attend such schools but simply as a means of embarrassing the Labour party over the way in which some amendments were tabled in Committee. That is reprehensible. It is something that we might have expected from the hon. Member for Stirling, but I did not expect it from the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang). I hope that when he replies he will apologise for giving the impression that he is continuing to play party politics with special education.
Will the Minister deal with the important strategy that is pursued by education authorities in making provision for special education? When I was first elected to Tayside regional council, its policy was to send all blind children to the Royal Blind school in Edinburgh. That posed serious problems for parents: from the age of five, their children were expected to leave their homes in Dundee and stay in Edinburgh between Monday and Friday, returning only at weekends. The parents therefore formed a campaign group called Sight. Having lobbied local councillors and the education authority, they gradually succeeded in obtaining provision for their children. Now a special unit provides primary education for blind children in a Dundee school; a similar unit provides them with secondary education.
If the Minister's interpretation of the amendments is correct, I assume that it will be possible for such a special unit to opt out and to set up its own provision, parallel with that offered by the education authority. If that is so, it should be resisted: owing to the number of blind children attending the Dundee units, it would be extremely wasteful to duplicate such provision.
The Minister said that the Secretary of State for Scotland will intervene to ensure that such provision as I have described will remain. I trust that it will not be possible for those units to opt out, and that the needs of all children requiring special education in my area will continue to be met by the education authority. I hope that all the resources that the authority requires will be provided and integrated to ensure that the needs of children come before those of any political prejudice about opting out.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Although I believe that it is vital to cater for children with special educational needs, it is entirely inappropriate to deal with special schools in the context of self-governing status. The Government should not have included clause 27 in the Bill. There is no basic demand for self-governing status in the special schools, and it is significant that fewer parents have been taking up positions on school boards. That reflects not a lack of interest on their part, but the close and intimate links that already exist between parents and staff in special schools. Parents, on the whole, have overwhelming confidence in the management and administration of such schools. The Government have placed an unacceptable burden on parents who already spend many hours caring for their children. The uncertainty created by the Bill will make it extremely

difficult for a local authority to provide special education on the basis of a planned system, and to allocate funding where it is required.
As for conductive education, although I welcomed the Health Minister's support for the sending of children to the Peto institute in Hungary, many physiotherapists and speech therapists—who had tried for years to obtain resources to give those children intensive therapy—are astonished and dismayed. They are deeply hurt, and feel that the Government have dismissed their years of effort.
Will the special schools have to buy in services from the NHS? I fear that what has been built up as an integrated team service is likely to become fragmented and destabilised, as have so many other services—particularly the NHS—following the Government's actions.

Mr. Lang: There is relatively little time for me to reply, but I shall try to cover at least some of the points that have been made.
Following what has been said by some Opposition Members, I think it appropriate to put into perspective the circumstances in which the Bill came to be amended. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) put something of a gloss on the Opposition's behaviour. In England, there is no provision for special schools to opt out, and the Scottish Bill originally provided for an option for regulation to allow it at a later date. However, the Opposition simultaneously tabled two sets of amendments, one designed to bring the Scottish position into line with the Education Reform Act 1988, and the other—sponsored, I understand, by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council—to include special schools in the entitlement to opt out from the outset.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) added his name to those amendments—which strikes me as entirely proper, as he supported them. That led to the debate, as a result of which the view of the Committee prevailed, and it was decided to make the change. Surely that is far from being a reprehensible or party-political approach to what is indeed a serious issue. In my view, the issues concerning special educational needs—which are difficult and sensitive, and to which Conservative Members attach great importance—have been debated not only sensitively, but thoroughly and well.

It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER then designated Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36 as appearing to him to involve questions of privilege.

Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 36 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 34 agreed to.

Clause 30

CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS OF SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOL

Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 20, line 19, after "board" insert
held, subject to subsection (1A) below, not less than five years after the incorporation date".

Mr. Lang: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 38, in page 20, line 23, at end insert—
(1A) With the prior written consent of the Secretary of State a motion for such a resolution as is mentioned in subsection (1) above may be determined at a meeting of the board of management held at a date earlier than subsection (1) above would require.".

Mr. Lang: The amendments prevent the board of management of a self-governing school from initiating the procedures in clause 30 to change the characteristics of the school for a period of at least five years from the incorporation of the board unless it has the prior consent of the Secretary of State. They give precise expression to our stated policy, which is, in a nutshell, that the change to self-governing status would itself be change enough for an y school to absorb, without its having to contemplate further major organisational change shortly afterwards. There must, of course, be provision for the exceptional case: for example, population movement in a locality could radically affect demand for a particular school. That is covered by amendment No. 38. It avoids the defect of an otherwise similar amendment, which was rightly rejected by my hon. Friend in Committee.
Clause 30 seems to have received more attention than any other clause in the Bill. Let me say something about how we see it working, particularly in the light of the amendments. It should first be said—although it ought to be obvious—that it is essential to provide some means by which a school can adapt its organisation to changing circumstances. That applies in the public and private sectors equally. An independent school is governed by the rules of the marketplace; it must identify a demand that it can meet, and that is sufficient to ensure that it attracts enough pupils to remain financially viable. It is free to adapt its organisation accordingly.
On the other side of the fence, an education authority is a public provider, with a responsibility to ensure that there is adequate school provision for the geographical area that it covers. To do that, it too must be free to close schools, to open new ones and to reorganise and adapt those that continue under its management.
The self-governing school stands somewhere between the two. It is a free-standing institution and, in that respect, is like an independent school. It remains part of the public sector, however, and, on that account, must be subject to some control over any major changes that it proposes in the range or character of its provision. However, it would be absurd if a self-governing school were, alone among schools, to be prevented by statute from ever changing its characteristics.
Control over a school is twofold. First, a board of management cannot just come to the Secretary of State and, so to speak, do a private deal with him to get its scheme of government amended. It has to obtain support in a ballot of parents and then publish its proposals. Only then can it go to the Secretary of State and ask him to determine whether it is to be allowed to change its status.
6.30 pm
Secondly, the Secretary of State, by virtue of another amendment to the clause, has to take account of the implications of any proposed change for the education authority's own provision in the area. In other words, he is precluded from considering the self-governing school's

stated case in total isolation. He has to look at it as part of the pattern of public provision for the area—which, after all, is what it is.
So much for statute. I might add that it would run against the grain of the Government's policy that any school in the public sector should close its door to a whole class or category of parents. That would be a denial of choice, whereas we are seeking to maximise choice.
All sorts of fears have been expressed, including the fear that self-governing schools would become, in one way or another, selective—academically, socially or on religious grounds. I do not know how far these fears have been artifically stoked up, but, whether they are genuine or not, I do not believe that they are well founded.
Parents who look to self-governing schools to provide an exclusive haven of any sort are likely to be disappointed. We have specifically provided that the right of a parent to have his child admitted to a self-governing school shall be the same as his right to send the child to the education authority school of his choice.
As for the question of exclusion on religious grounds, which has been raised from time to time, it is a general provision of the law—and has been so in Scotland since 1872—that any public school shall be open to any child, regardless of religious affiliation. That goes even for denominational schools at present, and it will apply equally to self-governing schools.
Finally, I doubt whether in practice there will be much demand from parents with children at self-governing schools for such a change of character, except where it is obviously forced on them by circumstances. The parents will have chosen the school as it is and will value it for the character that it has. Moreover, if the school ceases to attract pupils who want to send their children to that school, it will not remain financially viable for long. Schools will be unable to afford to be exclusive.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister said that it is difficult to envisage circumstances in which a school would wish to change its character, but he said earlier that he thought that one circumstance might be a shift of population. Can the Minister provide more detail about why a shift of population would lead school authorities to believe that they should change not the size but the character of the school?

Mr. Lang: Circumstances change outwith a school's control. Any school—whether local authority, private sector or self-governing—has to reappraise the surrounding environment, to take account of it and to make whatever alterations might appear to be necessary and appropriate.

Mr. McFall: The Minister said that schools may find that they are not financially viable. If an opted-out school was not financially viable because it could not attract pupils and the school approached the Government for financial assistance after opting out, what would their response be?

Mr. Lang: The Government would approach the financial needs of opted-out schools in exactly the same way, using the same criteria, as they approach the financial viability of schools that had not opted out. They would use the same criteria as local authorities use. The hon. Gentleman will find no grounds for complaint on that score.
Our policy is clear. It has never been the Government's intention that opting out should be a device for changing the character of a school. We have made that clear from the outset. The amendment puts the matter beyond any doubt and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister has used mild and gentle words, but I must repeat the words of the hon. Member for Stirling—that this is the most radical and profound change in Scottish education within a generation. How does one square the two statements?
We welcome the safeguards that the other place has introduced. It will not now be possible to change the character of a school for five years. A Labour Government will have been returned to power before any school can change its character, and we will repeal this measure—make no doubt about it.
A disturbing feature of the Bill is the funding of opted-out schools. As the Minister said, it is not a question of the Government wanting, by giving schools the option to opt out, to provide more choice. As the hon. Member for Stirling said, the Government want to introduce most radical and profound change. There can be radical and profound change only if schools apply for opted-out status.
Schools will apply for opted-out status in two ways. First, some areas—they will tend to be relatively well-off—will wish to embark on the long-term strategy, of turning all their schools into selective schools and, I have no doubt, in the long term into private schools in the independent sector.
Secondly, other schools that wish to opt out will be in areas where closures are threatened. Any councillor, or former councillor, who has experience of school closures is scarred for life. Everybody acknowledges that there is a surplus of school places and that schools should be closed. But when one gets down to it, it is never "our school." It is always somebody else's school that should be closed, whether it has only a few or a great many pupils.
Whenever the possibility of closing a school is talked about in future, the appeals procedure will be there as a backstop. As part of their strategy, groups of parents will decide to apply to the Secretary of State for opted-out status. The Secretary of State will then choose which schools should have that status. Labour-controlled areas will be ignored by him. Under the 1980 legislation, the Secretary of State said that he did not want to be involved in school closures—that he wished to return the power to close schools to local authorities. Very difficult school closure issues will, however, be decided by the Secretary of State. He will say, "Tory areas will keep their schools. Labour areas will close their schools." It is as simple as that.
After schools have been awarded opted-out status, the Government will seek, as was intimated in theSunday Times article to which I referred earlier, to turn them into the equivalent of English grammar schools. They will be helped, because that is Government strategy. The Secretary of State's allocation of grants over a five-year period will shovel money towards opted-out schools. It will be clearly seen that they are getting preferential treatment.
The revenue account formula is of no use whatsoever. Clear obligations are being laid on all local authorities; they will ensure that no action can be taken against opted-out schools. What obligations does the measure

impose on the Secretary of State to play fair? We come down to that horrible word "reasonable"—a word that cannot be defined.
The Secretary of State will decide, on his own personal judgment, the recurrent grant to give any school. The intention of the Under-Secretary of State, who is still manipulating the Scottish education service, is to steer grant towards opted-out schools, thus producing a two-tier system. The same procedure will operate for capital allocation. The Secretary of State will say, "We must feed our own first." By "our own" he means the opted-out schools and not those looked after by the local education authority. Inevitably, if a Tory Government remain in power, a two-tier system will be set up.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Worthington: No, I will not give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman should go back to sleep.
It is extremely serious, because, over the centuries, a clear culture has developed which is precious and which will be destroyed by the Bill. I notice it particularly because of my own background. I had the privilege of moving from the class-ridden English structure with an elitist, snobbish culture into a system in which 96 or 97 per cent. of the population goes to the state school. There are enormous benefits from that. An enormous sense of community and cohesion comes from that identity with the local comprehensive school. It provides choice and variety instead of grey uniformity. I know of not one comprehensive school that is exactly the same as another. The comprehensive system provides the opportunity to develop the characteristics of an area and to give choices that are appropriate to the community. For example, in the Western Isles a school might add in Gaelic and in an area with heavy industry it might add in appropriate skills. The comprehensive system provides the potential for that choice—[Interruption.] I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barry Porter: On the grounds that I have been here and awake. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that the entire education system should be controlled by the state and that it should all be comprehensive? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Worthington: A valuable system has been developed in which there must be a role for central Government in education, but there is also a role for education authorities. The Bill proposes a formidable centralisation of control over the state system whereby the Secretary of State decides which schools close and which remain open. When a Labour Government come into power, we shall repeal this legislation and restore the special relationship between the Scottish school system and the community in which it operates. We shall stop the destruction of that relationship by the divisive powers embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Salmond: I should like to pursue the Minister further on the circumstances in which a school might wish to change its characteristics. Perhaps he can supply more detail of the characteristics that could be changed.
In another place, Lord Sanderson said on 18 October that he fully expected that most self-governing schools will have no wish to alter their basic characteristics. This


evening the Minister said something very similar. Incidentally, the debate in the House of Lords was as badly attended as our debate has been.
If Ministers in the House of Lords and here tonight can see no circumstances in which schools will wish to change their basic characteristics, why on earth are we debating these amendments? The Minister has tried to palm us off by saying that things are always evolving and that in time there will be changes and it would be ridiculous if self-governing schools could not make the same changes as other schools in the system. What changes does he perceive self-governing schools will wish to make after the five-year period? Will it be a change to single-sex education, religious education or—and this is much more likely—selective education?
6.45 pm
I see in the amendments the possibility of schools changing their characteristics the Government's intention to move the Scottish system of education towards a selective system which has been such a failure south of the border. We have to acknowledge that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is a product of the Scottish education system. He is not much of an advert for it, but he is certainly a product of the comprehensive system and the Scottish university system. Many Opposition Members are appalled by the actions of the Under-Secretary of State and his approach to education because he is seeking to deny future generations of Scottish schoolchildren the advantages that he enjoyed. There is no doubt in my mind that the opening up of the possibility of changing the characteristics of Scottish schools through self-governing status is an attempt to open the door to the reintroduction of selective education in Scotland, which would be a major step backwards.

Mrs. Fyfe: During our discussions in Committee, the Opposition had to point out to the Government for many a weary hour that children should not be subjected to changes in the nature or the ethos of their schools any more frequently than necessary.
We had to point out that it would be unreasonable to do as the Government first intended and allow changes in the nature of one to take place virtually as quickly as any group of parents could succeed in winning a vote to do so. Therefore, we welcome the protection in the Lords amendment, especially bearing in mind some of the changes that could be envisaged. For example, a school could change from one teaching both sexes to a single-sex school and back again. It could change from a non-denominational school to one serving a particular denomination and back again. It could change from a school promoting particular abilities and skills such as music and dancing or maths to one teaching whatever subject took the fancy of those deciding these matters.
We debated whether we approved of giving specialist education to children in skills such as dancing and music as we wanted all children's abilities to be fostered. Although we agreed that certain skills should be fostered, we certainly drew a distinction between that and the prospect of a school changing from a comprehensive to one which was aimed at the fast stream—the children who were seen as academic high fliers.
Comprehensive schools are commonplace in Scotland. They exist in many small Scottish towns not because of educational policy but because that was the nature of the beast—in a small area, all the children in the locality came together in such schools. On the whole, it has been a success. We should not exaggerate that success, because under any system some children do not receive the education that they should.
Conservative Members have been dishonest about our education system. Many of the problems with the English comprehensive system are caused by the way that it is run. It is commonplace for teachers to teach subjects for which they do not have a degree, never mind teacher training. A teacher in a secondary school in Scotland is required not only to have the relevant degree but to have the relevant elements in that degree before being allowed to teach that particular subject. For that reason alone, it is hardly surprising that comprehensives in Scotland have been more successful. The egalitarian ethos appertaining to so much of Scottish society is seen in our education system. It is natural and normal to bring together all our children in one building to share their experiences, and they are all treated the same whether they wear a uniform or not.
Conservative Members representing English constituencies served on the Committee considering the Bill. We express our anger once again at their continuous ill-informed and ignorant interventions, their endless disturbances, their schoolboyish raising of points of order and their nonsensical manoeuvres. As the debate draws to a close, thereby offering no further opportunity to debate Scottish education, only two Scottish Tory Back Benchers are present, and only one of the English Tory stormtroopers of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Fyfe: May I point out, in answer to the finger waving of Conservative Members—

Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) to comment on the number of Conservative Members present, when only four Scottish Labour Members are present?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we want to get into the numbers game.

Mrs. Fyfe: I made that point for a very good reason. This is a Conservative Members' Bill. They want to force it on Scotland, yet few are present to defend their actions.

Mr. Allan Stewart: rose—

Mrs. Fyfe: I will not give way.
The Minister brought on to the Committee a bunch of English Tory Members not because of their interest in Scottish education but merely as stormtroopers to make pests of themselves. Only one has the guts to remain here to defend their position, but he has not been paying attention for most of the evening. He has been wandering in and out and reading something, I cannot see what.

Mr. McFall: Does my hon. Friend recall that those Tory Members who thought that Charles Gray was knighted are the same hon. Members who were asked what


the "qualy" was but did not know? We offered them an awayday ticket to Scotland to find out what it was, but they were so ignorant that they rejected it.

Mrs. Fyfe: My hon. Friend is right. We challenged them to take a test to see whether they could pass the qualy, but not one of them would accept that challenge.
Conservative Members displayed their ignorance of Scottish education in many other ways, but it did not prevent them from wasting hours of our time with their nonsense. They are pushing this legislation through regardless of the wishes of the Scottish people, but they will pay in the end through the loss of seats in Scotland. Tory Members are sure to lose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).

Mrs. Fyfe: I am not surprised that Conservative Members are attempting to prevent Labour Members from expressing their views. They are making much noise because they have nothing to say. They have nothing to contribute to the debate other than schoolboy manoeuvres. Their behaviour will soon be exposed when the House is televised. I wonder whether they will then continue to conduct themselves like stupid public schoolboys. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would welcome an improvement in their behaviour. I am an ex-teacher in further education, but I never had a class that conducted itself in the way that Conservative Members are now doing. I know that you are often appalled by the conduct of Conservative Members, particularly when a woman Member is speaking.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 38, 45 and 46 agreed to.

There being private business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock MR. SPEAKER suspended the sitting, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Time for taking private business).

Sitting suspended.

Orders of the Day — Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

7 pm

Mr. Alun Michael: My main reasons for supporting the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill fall under two headings—jobs and the environment. I want to say a little about each. By convention, I must be extremely brief, but I should be happy to answer points if given leave of the House to do so—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ask hon. Members who are standing beyond the Bar to withdraw? I am having difficulty hearing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand the hon. Member's point. I ask hon. Members who are not taking part in the proceedings to leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for raising that point of order. As I was saying, I shall be happy, if given the leave of the House, to clarify points at the end of the debate or before Second Reading.
Having worked with young people and unemployed people in Cardiff, I have direct experience of the depression and degradation that unemployment brings, and I want to see an end to it. I have also been involved in the economic regeneration of Cardiff and I know just how hard it has been to achieve. We have had successes, but there are still massive problems. Unemployment in south Glamorgan is still above the Welsh average. Much of that unemployment is concentrated in my constituency, in the


very area covered by the Cardiff bay development, and in areas such as Riverside in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
As the Committee will hear in due course, I hope, the barrage is the key to the redevelopment that will bring the jobs that are so vital to the area. Those jobs will help my constituency, but the impact will be felt throughout the region. About 30 per cent. of jobs in Cardiff are filled by workers outside the city and it is estimated that up to 10,000 jobs will be filled by workers from the rest of the region. In cash terms, that is about £75 million in wages, without taking account of the effect of the multiplier or of jobs during the construction period. The figures will be open to testing in Committee, but they show that the Bill should be carried over because it is so important to so many people. In 1981, 20,000 people a day were coming from the valleys of south Wales to work in Cardiff, and road and rail flows have increased since then. People in the region are increasingly interdependent.
There is also the matter of the environment in which we live. I became a member of the city council in the early 1970s because I felt that the city was failing to create real communities for people to live in. At that time, we wanted to stop extending the city ever outwards towards Newport, Barry and Caerphilly and to bring people into the city centre to live. Our efforts were frustrated, but the death of the steel works and other heavy industries and the decline of the docks have created an opportunity, as well as leaving dirt and dereliction behind them.
A start to the regeneration was made when Labour councillors in South Glamorgan spearheaded the Atlantic wharf development with the new county hall. That ambitious development saved money for the ratepayers. This very night the Association of County Councils is presenting its major national award to south Glamorgan for that initiative in this, the centenary year of county council government. The regeneration of south Cardiff needs a more powerful catalyst which will catch the imagination and create opportunities and jobs. That catalyst is the barrage. It has already caught the imagination nationally and internationally.
The real challenge is how we manage this change. It must repsect the existing communities. It must involve affordable homes for local people and their children and grandchildren. These are the things that we are tackling in my constituency. We must keep existing jobs, even if they need to be relocated to make way for development. That is why I am pleased by the encouraging answer given to my question by the Secretary of State for Wales yesterday when he said that assistance for relocation and expansion of local firms would be forthcoming.
We must redevelop south Cardiff so as to enhance and respect the existing city, but to create the jobs that we need and improve the environment in the way that we need, the barrage is the essential catalyst.

Mr. Allan Rogers: As one who represents a constituency not far from Cardiff and who had a close connection with the dockland area of Cardiff some years ago, I accept the need for redevelopment of that area, but I have yet to be convinced of the need for the barrage. My hon. Friend, perhaps not intentionally, is twinning the ideas of relieving unemployment and constructing the

barrage. Unemployment and dereliction in Cardiff could be easily improved by the development of the dockland area, without building a barrage across the rivers.

Mr. Michael: I respect my hon. Friend's views. The House of Lords Select Committee unanimously said:
The Committee was convinced on the evidence that the economic case was sound and that the investment prospects were good.
That was an expression of the dependence of jobs on the barrage. I accept that this link needs to be questioned closely, but I cannot go into the detail today. The carry-over motion should be accepted so that this issue can be investigated, as my hon. Friend would wish. I contend that the case for the barrage is strong and urgent. Consideration should be carried over so that opposition to the Bill can be scrutinised by a Committee.
Opposition to the barrage is sincere, but misguided. One element rests on the view that impoundment of water will lead to a rise in ground water and affect some basements. Everyone agrees that this is an issue, and I repeat that I have an open mind on it. However, evidence to date suggests that it has been considerably overstated by the Bill's opponents. As such problems would affect my constituency to the greatest extent, I assure the House that I am vigorously seeking clarity and precision on the likely effects of ground water. It is clear—this point was recently endorsed by the Welsh region of the National Rivers Authority—that the barrage will help to prevent flooding in the city. I should say that—following the line pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about jobs—the reassurances about ground water were unanimously accepted by the House of Lords Select Committee.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend mentioned the role that has been played by the NRA. As I understand it, now that the scientists in the authority's employ have been freed of the political control that was exercised over them—just as it was over Welsh Water—they have opposed the barrage because of its implications in terms of flooding and water quality. My hon. Friend is obviously in touch with the Bill's sponsors and, presumably, the NRA. Perhaps he can tell us whether the NRA opposes the Bill.

Mr. Michael: I am happy to respond to that point. The answer is no. The NRA has marginally updated the position now that it is a separate body. The updated report would be subject to close scrutiny by the Committee. The NRA's position has been made clear. First, it would improve the situation to lessen dangers in the future. Secondly, it has made strong comments about the safeguards necessary to maintain water quality. The House of Lords Select Committee considered those safeguards adequate. My hon. Friend has raised a matter that needs careful consideration and scrutiny by the Committee.
The importance of Cardiff bay as a site for waders has been overstated by some, but not all, of the opponents of the Bill. The area is not a site of international importance for waders or wild fowl in its own right, but it is not insignificant. That is why the decision to create alternative feeding grounds is important. I hope that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other groups will recognise the benefits of the barrage for the human environment, and that they will make a positive effort to


develop the alternative lagoon and get its management right. The matter deserves full scrutiny by a Committee of the House.
There is real concern about the national and international environment. It is right that the Government should be under pressure to give greater priority to planning and conserving the environment. However, that is no reason to stop this Bill. We are talking not about a natural environment, but about one that was created by building the docks 150 years ago, tipping and reclamation of land, the despoliation caused by heavy industry and the pressures of a growing city.
The barrage will keep out tidal waters which the House of Lords report described as "far from clean" and it will lead to the removal of many sewer outlets from the Cardiff bay area.
Many people are understandably fearful of the changes which the barrage will bring but many more look forward with hope. One man who sailed out of Cardiff docks for many years said of the mud at low tide, "It stank then and it stinks now. Let's get on with it." He speaks for many people.
South Cardiff has long been the backyard of our city, but in it live some of the best people and some of the closest communities I know. They deserve jobs, homes and a pleasant environment. The Bill can unlock that door to opportunity. We must manage that opportunity in the best way possible for our city, for our communities and for future generations. I ask right hon. and hon. Members, please do not slam that door in our faces.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to some of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I had hoped to be able to synchronise our chronometers and to speak for the same length of time, but as my hon. Friend spoke for less time than I had expected, I may be unable to do that. But I shall do my best.
I take a different view from my hon. Friend and others who support the motion. I doubt its validity. First, we ought to establish clearly the purpose of a carry-over motion. Why are we debating it? Why is it not an automatic procedure? It is an opportunity for the House to decide whether it wishes to give leave to the promoters of a private Bill to allow it to span two parliamentary Sessions. It is a matter for right hon. and hon. Members to consider with all the wisdom that they can muster. They have to consider the state of the Bill. It is not an automatic procedure, where hon. Members turn up, give a nod and it passes through to the next Session. We must decide whether the Bill is in a fit state to be carried over, whether it deserves to be carried over and whether it should have the leave of the House to be considered, not only in the parliamentary year which comes to an end the day after tomorrow, but in the 12 months following the Queen's Speech next week.
This Bill has plainly not earned the right to be carried over. I base my case on the preamble of the Bill and because it appears before us in a defective state. In effect, we are considering two Bills—the one which the House of Lords thought that they sent to the House of Commons, and the one which they sent. I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and the

promoters of the Bill, through their parliamentary agents, some 26 hours ago of my reasons. I have not received any formal communication, although I have had some informal communication about details of the Bill.
There is no contest between anybody here tonight about whether there is a defect in the Bill. The question is whether that defect destroys the case for a carry-over motion.
When the Bill left the other place it was accompanied, as is normal, by a plan, signed by Lord Elibank, the Chairman of the Lords Committee, which gave effect to the terms of the Bill. There is a line marked on the map. Everybody who lives or who owns a business within that line is protected against ground water damage, which the promoters of the Bill have accepted will be possible after closing off the mouths of the rivers Taff and Ely.
The line offered by the promoters, in the case they presented to the Committee in the other place, was known as plan 12. The map carried two lines—describing the protected property line and the further protected property line. In Committee, their Lordships in their wisdom decided to abolish the inner line, and to make the outer line the sole determinant of the area within which compensation could be paid, or works could be carried out in lieu of compensation, to businesses and homes which had ground water ingress into basements or foundations. That was given the backing of the whole House on Third Reading in the other place.
Plan 12 was prepared by the promoters based on geological estimates, and it covered a large area. There is disagreement about whether ground water effects will be more extensive in my constituency or in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I think that they will be more extensive in my constituency, but it is a minor point. Thousands of homes will be affected one way or the other. I have not studied the matter that closely, but when I glance at the map I see that more properties will be affected in my constituency and more acreage in my hon. Friend's, but that is a moot point.
What is not a moot point is that in plan 12, as presented to the Lords, the outer boundary was to be the one within which every property had the right to a free survey at the expense of the promoters, and to compensatory work by them to put right any damage caused by water ingress as a result of the barrage. If there was any problem or disagreement about those works, people would be able to go to arbitration in the normal way. The Lords accepted that scheme.
The Chairman of the Committee signed five copies of the plan. One was deposited in the Private Bill Office in this House, one in the Private Bill Office in the other place, one at the headquarters of both of the promoters—the Cardifff Bay development corporation and South Glamorgan county council—and one in the city hall. However, it turns out that the plan that the Chairman of the Committee, Lord Elibank, signed was not coterminous with plan 12—the plan which the promoters had offered.

Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend and the House. I notified him of this earlier, so it will come as no surprise. This is a serious issue, but it has been dealt with and the formalities can be dealt with easily.
My hon. Friend first mentioned the issue to me late last night, although it could have been raised with the county council at any time during the past two weeks. I mentioned it to the county council this morning. It has checked the


situation and confirms that my hon. Friend is right. Plan 12 is the correct plan. The council has checked with the authorities and there are two ways in which the situation can be put right. It apologises for the error, which it did not notice until it was drawn to its attention. Either the Chairman of the Lords Committee can sign a new plan, or an amended plan can be put to the Commons Committee. Either could solve the problem—whichever is more acceptable to the authorities of the House. It is right that my hon. Friend should raise the matter, but it has been dealt with, and can be dealt with without difficulty. Perhaps it would be as well for my hon. Friend to leave it at that and get on to the other important issues he wants to raise.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend will have to let me make my own speech in my own way. However, I accept that he is perfectly correct in informing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he has told me this in a verbal form. In the almost 26½ hours since I communicated this to the parliamentary agents for the promoters, I have received no formal communication from the agents or the promoters to the effect of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Michael: I want to place on record the fact that I have spoken to those individuals as well. I assure my hon. Friend that what has been said by the county council has been confirmed by those who represent them. The county, of course, had not been approached by my hon. Friend until he raised the concerns of his constituents, which recognise are important, with me. I hope that he will accept my reassurance, which is on the record in this House.

Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the first debate on a private Bill that I have attended. I find myself a little confused about the status of the different maps and the lines on the maps. Can you advise us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the whole Bill is invalidated as a result of the confusion and we thus need to start from scratch, or whether there is a way of getting round the problem?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matters that I have heard referred to in the course of the debate are matters which, if the House approved the motion before it, could doubtless be considered and determined by the Committee that will consider the Bill in the fullness of time.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to refer to the terms of the motion and especially the fifth paragraph, which says:
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126, relating to Private Business".
The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) who have now been omitted by the redrawing of the map will be denied the opportunity to petition against the Bill because the map was redrawn following the examination of the Bill by the House of Lords and before the expiry of the Session. Can you give us some guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether we are now able to proceed with the Bill, knowing that we are, in effect, disfranchising 500 of those constituents—or at least withdrawing their right to petition against the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman is precise terms whether petitioners who might be affected by these later developments would be within time to submit their petitions. However, I have no doubt that it would be possible for the Committee of the House to have regard to and to take into account what has been said in this debate in its deliberations on the Bill.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to pursue the matter, but it is a serious point. If I have understood your ruling correctly, you are saying that the Committee that will consider the detail of the Bill will not be bound by the terms of the motion. If that is the case, should we be discussing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked a question that rightly arose from the paragraph, to which he referred, about the rights of petitioners, as distinct from the rights of Members of this House. I cannot say off-hand—and it would be unwise for me to make an off-the-cuff remark which might prejudice the rights of petitioners—whether there are those who might wish to present a petition and who might be excluded by the terms of that paragraph. However, there would be nothing to prevent the Committee from listening to and taking account of the submissions made by hon. Members in the debate and therefore having regard to the points raised.

Mr. Michael: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should point out that an undertaking has been given to restore the line to the point where everybody thought it was. There is no question of anybody being disfranchised. The question simply does not arise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although I do not know whether I can make a point of order in the middle of my speech—I think that I may be able to help you. The date of 24 July was the last on which petitioners could lodge objections in this House. Do I sit down now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) suggested that all that had happened was that there had been a reversion to what was previously understood about the scope of the Bill in this respect. He suggested—and it would be improper for me to suggest that he was doing anything other than correctly guiding the House—that because the previous delineations were sufficiently known at the relevant time, those who had the right to petition did so and that what is now at issue does not expose the delineations to new petitioners who might be excluded by the time limits. I hope that that is clear.

Mr. Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If only that were true. What could easily have happened to all or any of the 850 homes and few businesses in the areas affected is that if they had proceeded on the basis of the document on which they thought they were relying, they would have proceeded on the basis that they did not need to petition because they were within the line. They did not, therefore, petition. If they then find that they are outside the line and want to petition about that fact, they have lost the right to do so. Can they have that right restored by the alteration that my


hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has, in all sincerity, suggested may be made? That is why I am concerned about my constituents' rights.

Mr. Michael: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I tried to explain, surely the position as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) thought it was a fortnight ago—and he was not sure that there was a problem until this weekend—has been put right. The position is once again as he and everyone else understood it, so there is no problem.

Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am genuinely confused now. As I understand the terms of the motion, we are considering a Bill that has been through the House of Lords and has now come here. The argument is that it is now in a fit and proper state to he extended to the next Session of Parliament. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has submitted that the Bill is not properly prepared to proceed in the next Session. To reinforce my hon. Friend's argument, the evidence for that is that the boundary of the area that will be affected by the Bill has now been altered. Can you help me on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Certain facts were put to the people of Cardiff, who then had the right to petition. At that time, there were many people who did not petition against the Bill because the boundary, as delineated on the map, did not affect them. After the Bill has gone through the House of Lords and come here, as a matter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was speaking on a point of order, but he seems to be making a speech and, if I may say so, a rather lengthy one.

Mr. Rogers: I should still like your clarification on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Bill is not in a fit and proper state to go through to the next Session, you must rule that the motion is out of order and under the terms of the motion, you do not have any option but to do that. If people have not had the right to petition, if the Bill has not been properly prepared and if it is proceeding on the basis of statistics and information that have been altered by a conservation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone sufficiently far for the House and myself to have grasped the point. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has said that it is now clear that the people affected by the scope of the Bill are those who it was assumed would be affected at the relevant date. No one is apparently affected now who has not already had the right to petition. In any case, these are not matters that lead the Chair to rule on the validity of the motion, but matters that doubtless will be taken into account when hon. Members reach a decision on the motion before the House and in the subsequent proceedings on the Bill should the House decide to approve the motion.

Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you explain to the House whether, in your other role as Chairman of Ways and Means, you would sanction a Bill coming to the House tonight if it was not in order, or would you rule it out of order, if it was?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member and the House know that, when a private Bill is submitted to the House, it goes before the Examiners, who scrutinise the vires and satisfy themselves that the Bill is in order. Only then is the Bill allowed to seek further progress in the House. It is not necessary for me to give any further clarification. I hope that the position is now clear and that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West will resume his speech.

Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received notice that the boundaries have been revised or any legal or other advice about the Bill, now that these amendments, post-Lords but pre-Commons, have been incorporated in the map?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My response is in the negative. I am sure that if anything was out of order, I should have been notified by the appropriate authorities and those who serve me in the House.

Mr. Morgan: I shall resume my speech, but I wish to raise one additional point of great importance which has been overlooked in the past five minutes of exchanges. Extreme care is always taken by those advising petitioners about the phrasing of petitions. If someone lives on one side of a line defined in the Bill, his petition must be phrased in a certain way and it is ruled invalid if a form of words is used which hints that he lives on the other side of the line. Someone within a protected property zone must frame his petition making it clear that he is a householder or the owner of a business within the zone. If the property or business is on the other side of the line, the petition must be phrased differently to be in order. That point must be borne in mind.
Let us consider the general state of the Bill. The motion is not an automatic carry-over motion but a debatable one. I put it to the House that the Bill is not fit to be carried over because it is defective. We have to accept the word of the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, that a mistake in the Bill can be put right, but that does not alter the fact that the Bill is defective. He may maintain that it is not very defective, but 850 homes, a hospital and a substantial number of small and medium-sized businesses constitute a sufficiently significant defect to rule the Bill not fit to be carried over. How great an error must the Bill contain to stop it being carried over automatically? In my view, a substantial number of businesses, a hospital and 850 homes in my constituency render the Bill sufficiently defective.
The question whether the Bill is defective is primarily a matter of procedure. I have nothing to show my constituents to prove that the Bill will be put right. I have received no form of communication, either from the promoters or their parliamentary agents.
When deciding whether the Bill is sufficiently close to achieving its objectives to require us to carry it over from one parliamentary Session to another, we must consider whether the Bill commands general support in the community in Cardiff. The Bill is supported by both the local authorities and the appropriate Government Department. However, there is an archaeological freezing process in Government Departments and local authorities which does not apply to public opinion. When a Government Department and two local authorities become committed to a scheme, they find it extremely difficult to change their minds, whatever new information becomes available.
The Bill stems from studies carried out in 1985 by the present Secretary of State's predecessor when he represented Pembroke. The measure was eventually presented in the form of a statutory instrument to set up the urban development corporation in March 1987, when the then right hon. Member for Pembroke was still Secretary of State. In a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 31 March under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), the Secretary of State said:
At the end of 1985, I decided to commission a study of the investment potential in the area with particular reference to the benefits which would flow from the construction of a barrage across the estuaries of the Taff and Ely rivers close to the entrance of Cardiff harbour.
That goes back four years. He continued:
The results confirmed our view"—
I am not sure who "our" was: perhaps the Secretary of State and a property consultant—
that it should be possible not just to breathe new life into south Cardiff but to bring forward private sector investment on such a large scale that the project would become one of international significance."—[Official Report: Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &amp;c.; 31 March 1987, c. 4.]
The idea for the barrage was then presented to the two local authorities and it was proposed that some of the senior councillors become members of the urban development corporation. That is what occurred; a minority of five out of 14 councillors on the corporation are nominated by the local authorities. That is a far superior way of achieving regeneration of a run-down inner-city area than the model normally followed in England, where no local authority representatives are appointed to the body responsible, but it posed a major problem. It meant that, when dissent emerged in the community as more facts became known, it was more difficult for the supertanker of local authorities and the Government Department, aiming straight for the Titanic, to turn themselves around in time because dissent was seen not merely as the result of new information but as a breach of the code of lèse majesté or hara-kiri or omertà.

Mr. Michael: Does my hon. Friend accept that the monitoring committees and liaison committees established in both local authorities did not include in their membership the members nominated to the board and so gave the element of independence encouraged by both local authorities? Those committees could look critically and constructively at much of the detail as the matter proceeded.

Mr. Morgan: No, I do not agree with that. My hon. Friend is right that monitoring committees were set up by both authorities but, as I said, because of lèse-majesté it is psychologically difficult for local authorities to say, "New information has come in which makes us more doubtful. We had better have a general debate about it." They cannot do that simply because their most senior councillors are on the urban development corporation, albeit in a permanent built-in minority.
I do not criticise the local authorities. I would probably have done similarly had I been a councillor. Local authority opinion could not shift as easily as public opinion when new facts emerged to cast doubt on the validity of the original assumptions of 1985 and the

establishment of the UDC in 1987, following the meeting chaired by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West. Local authorities could not divert from the direction upon which they had embarked under the tutelage of the Secretary of State, whatever the private opinion of individual councillors. I make no comment on councillors' private opinions. They are a matter of speculation. We can judge only by the council's decision or lack of decision to change its mind when new facts become available. That is not true for the public and it certainly is not true for us tonight. We all have a free hand to look at the merits of the case for the carry-over motion because we are not Whipped. We can see whether the Bill comes close to achieving its objectives in relation to jobs and improvements in the environment which were fairly set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
Would the proposal bring anywhere near the number of jobs talked about in the Bill's preamble or would it have the reverse effect? That seems highly relevant to the carry-over motion. A large number of jobs—about 15,000—already exist within the area covered by the urban development corporation's compulsory purchase order comprehensive redevelopment area.
When I spoke to the officials who have the tricky task of putting into action the relocation programme, they told me that we would do well to keep half those jobs after they had been relocated to make way for redevelopment. That seems to pose a considerable problem for us when we consider whether the Bill is worthy of a carry-over motion. We have to contemplate the possibility that not only might the proposal not achieve the 30,000 jobs that have been spoken about in the long term, but it might take away 7,500 jobs from the total 15,000 jobs that currently exist. The number of jobs lost may be only 5,000, since not everything would be comprehensively redeveloped, although large areas would be. According to those most closely involved in the relocation of jobs, we would start with a major loss of jobs.

Mr. Michael: Would not my hon. Friend accept that this was precisely the important point which I addressed in my question to the Secretary of State which he answered yesterday? His reassurances of his determination to ensure the retention of jobs play an important role in the way in which we shall pursue the development which will follow on from the barrage.

Mr. Morgan: I accept the sincerity of my hon. Friend's remarks, but regard his point as a minor one compared to the problem which will be caused because many businesses in this area which now pay low rents will have to pay about four times the present level. They will move to highly desirable new industrial estates, but they will have to pay the rent, rates and insurance, all of which are connected with the rental levels.
I fear that the jobs argument is so distant from the preamble to the Bill that it harms not just the case for the Bill, but the prospects of granting the carry-over motion.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to pose a question on an issue about which we are all concerned: the number of people which it is suggested could be employed if the carry-over motion were agreed and the scheme were introduced. It is estimated that the scheme will bring more than 30,000 jobs into the area. I am only suggesting that as an estimate and I


appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend that jobs could be lost. Nevertheless, on balance, we could gain about 22,500 jobs in the long term even if we lost the 7,500 jobs which he suggests might go in the short term.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who always expresses himself with such great sincerity on these matters. Anybody who says that he has found the technique of creating 30,000 jobs in south Wales has been carefully hiding himself in the bushes during the past 50 years. The regional policy has operated since the special areas legislation was introduced in the early 1930s.
It is possible to build accommodation for 30,000 jobs. However, that is quite different from finding the occupiers of those builders rather than the property speculators who put up the buildings. What businesses will they be? Where will they come from? Will they be local to south Wales? I am deeply sceptical about any estimate involving job numbers of about 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000. It is terribly easy to talk about those figures, but awfully difficult to demonstrate the reality which lies behind such estimates.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Is my hon. Friend ignoring the experience of the major towns and cities of south Wales during the past 20 years in which there has been inertia and expressions have been made against change? Experience has shown that, when areas have been upgraded, there has been an increase in jobs. Is my hon. Friend arguing for a continuation of the industrial slums which were widespread in south Wales during the past 50 years, some of which, unfortunately, still continue? Does not my hon. Friend see that such upgrading is of enormous benefit?

Mr. Morgan: I think my hon. Friend is arguing that Hermann Goering was the greatest contributor to comprehensive redevelopment that we have ever seen in this country. It is inappropriate to say that while standing in the Chamber of the House of Commons which he successfully bombed in May 1941.
Most of the jobs that have been created in south Wales have been created on green field sites on the fringes of towns. The TSB in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is on a classic green field site development and promises a large number of new jobs. I could also mention city centre developments such as NPI in Cardiff, which does not demonstrate that this proposition—

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend must see the other side of the coin which is that the creation of those jobs is at the expense of the destruction of old industries in unsuitable areas in which industry lived cheek by jowl with housing. There has been large-scale redevelopment, where much of the old pattern of industry and the bad examples of the past have disappeared to enormous benefit. Is not that what will happen when the Cardiff Bay barrage is introduced?

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is talking about a new sort of religious concept whereby demolition and creation take place simultaneously. There are extreme risks in the notion expressed by my hon. Friend that sweeping things away is a creative procedure. The people who worked in the factories would not take that view.

Mr. Michael: Will not my hon. Friend acknowledge that there has been tremendous success through the

redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff? The regeneration of Cardiff through programmes such as the Cardiff and Vale enterprise has encouraged local people to set up in business and makes us optimistic that we may continue to do better, rather than worse, than promised.

Mr. Morgan: I am not sure what that proves. Redevelopment in the centre of Cardiff is one thing, but the comprehensive redevelopment and change of use down in the Cardiff docklands—covered by the compulsory purchase order area in the Bill—seems to he entirely different.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend should accept the arguments of his other hon. Friends that, undoubtedly, redevelopment will lead to new jobs. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and anyone who argues against the fact that this is one side of the coin would be wrong. Will my hon. Friend develop this point, as I am sure he would want to—

Mr. Morgan: Given half a chance I will.

Mr. Rogers: A large impounded lagoon is unlikely to create many jobs. The barrage is not required to create the jobs. What is required is a redevelopment of the docklands area of Cardiff which is already served by an extension of the motorway. I am sure that my hon. Friend is going to develop the point that it is not necessary to have a barrage to redevelop Cardiff. I support the redevelopment of Cardiff, but not a barrage.

Mr. Morgan: I was moving on to that point about 10 minutes ago.
The other unsatisfactory aspect of the new jobs issue is that in front of the House of Lords not a single investor other than those paid as consultants by the Cardiff Bay development corporation appeared as witnesses to give any support to the proposition that this redevelopment and barrage would create additional jobs or investment.
I shall turn to the environment and the possibility—I put it no higher than that—that the Bill, far from achieving its objective of improving the environment and thereby creating a more aesthetically pleasing environment for potential investors, could have the reverse effect. This point has already been alluded to in one of the innumerable interventions in my speech.
As far as I am aware, there is no dispute about the nature of the water that would be impounded by the barrage. It is generally accepted that the colour of the lake would alternate between green and brown, depending on the weather and the microbiological conditions. At no time of the year, and in no weather conditions, would it be blue or brilliant. The water would also be turgid.
The problem with impounding the Rivers Taff and Ely, in terms of distancing the Bill from the preamble, is that the water might, to use the modern American usage, be a turn-off for investors, rather than a turn-on. The reason for that is that the rivers Taff and Ely, almost throughout their length of between 20 and 30 miles, have sewage outlets, many of which are not mapped by the relevant monitoring authorities. As a result, their microbiological quality is extremely poor, but this is the water that would be impounded.
This will cause two problems. First, in the winter, the storm overflows from the joint sewers that handle rain water and sewage would lead to sewage overflowing the weir, whereas normally it would be below the weir. Storm


conditions are by no means confined to winter in south Wales. Such an overflow would force sewage over the weir and into the Rivers Taff, Ely, Cynon and Rhondda, and their various tributaries.
Secondly, in the summer, treated sewage becomes a significant proportion of the water-flow. The National Rivers Authority has informed me that in a typical summer—let alone this summer, which was particularly dry—one third of the flow of the river Ely is treated sewage, as is one sixth of the flow of the river Taff. That is why at Radyr weir, in my constituency and near where I was born and brought up, the smell is similar to that I remember smelling 40 years ago as a small boy cycling along the edge of the weir. I am told by the N RA that that is a sign of how difficult summer conditions are for any impounded or semi-impounded body of water, such as Radyr weir.
This problem is made worse with a large body of water, with sunlight playing on its shallow parts. It is more than likely that as a result, every five or six years, there will be a major algal bloom and a probable major fishkill, thereby rendering coarse fishery virtually impossible. If that happens, there cannot be a biological control of the midge explosion that would probably also occur.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been to Venice. It smells pretty nasty, but it is still an extremely attractive place.

Mr. Morgan: Comparisons with Venice are delightful, but I do not think that we can assume that the carry-over motion will do away with seven centuries of history in south Wales and northern Italy and give us an Adriatic environment.

Mr. Barry Porter: I hesitate to intervene in this internecine warfare, but are we to understand that a democratically elected city council and a democratically elected county council, properly advised on all these matters concerning sewage—about which the hon. Gentleman is clearly an expert—have reached the conclusion that the Bill is a good thing? If so, why does the hon. Gentleman wish to overturn the decision of those democratically elected bodies properly advised? I am, in the true sense of the word, disinterested in the Bill, but I am not uninterested because there will be a Mersey barrage at some stage, and we shall have to go through the same sort of procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: One barrage at a time, please.

Mr. Porter: The House should know, because I have a right to vote and my constituency borders on parts of Wales, why the hon. Gentleman is opposed to these decisions.

Mr. Morgan: I understand why the hon. Gentleman was so hesitant about intervening. Had he been paying attention earlier, he would have heard me say that it was a sad day when the Opposition found themselves in such a difficult position. The Secretary of State has made a Mafia-type offer—an offer that one cannot refuse—to the two local authorities. It was that either they had an urban development corporation imposed on them with no local authority representation or there would be one with

built-in minority local authority representation. Quite rightly—I offer no criticism of this—the councils chose the second option.
Just because one of those authorities is Labour-controlled and the other has a Labour majority in a hung council, we should not feel that we cannot speak on the issue or consider it. We are considering a germ of an idea produced by the Secretary of State and it is up to us to examine it thoroughly, regardless of the fact that a minority of the members of the UDC were Labour councillors and that—in my view, although there may be other views—the local authority has been severely inhibited in its ability to cope with the new information that has emerged about water quality. I was referring to that when I was interrupted for the 67th time. I find being interrupted restful. I am grateful for the sympathy of my hon. Friends. I could do with a glass of water, but I am all right.

Mr. Rogers: I will get one.

Mr. Morgan: Thanks.
I must make a point about the groundwater and the potential damage, which is closely related to the procedural issue that I raised when I began. There are questions about whether the Bill has been adequately prepared, given our knowledge about groundwater. Regardless of where the water came from, we need to look at whether Bills should come before the House when they have not been properly researched and when an offer is made to residents—the constituents of many of us—that they will be covered against the damage created by this project. We do not know how extensive that damage could be, or even whether the council is on the right lines in calculating what the groundwater damage is likely to be. There is a wide divide between geologists on this. Some of them take the view that a Mickey Mouse study has been done, to use the words of one geologist, who lives in Cardiff. It is felt that they have not even started to get the geological studies right because of the Mickey Mouse computer model.
In listening to the views of geologists, I have found that those who know the south Wales area well, who either live, work or were raised there, or educated there in geological faculties in universities, take the view that this has been inadequately researched. Those who are paid by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and have little experience of the local geological factors and in particular the odd combinations of rainfall and river flows and the nature of the aquifer under Cardiff, take the view that there is no problem.
Those geologists who have not been paid by the company—there are some exceptions—are concerned about the way that research has been done into what lies underneath Cardiff. There should be work on the aquifer and how that interrelates with rainfall and flood water conditions. Those who have much less experience of south Wales are for the plan.
I am extremely concerned about whether the Bill even begins to fulfil its preamble by way of being able to assure the people living in my constituency.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is right to bring up that point, and if he does not go on too long, I hope to do the same. As he knows, I am an engineering geologist by profession. Some of the information submitted in support of the Bill at various times to seek the support of hon.


Members—I refer to the glossy paper that I have with me—is riddled with inaccuracies. I advise my hon. Friend that those independent geologists who have examined the Wallace Evans report, as I have—people who have been involved and who know the situation as I do—see the report as having been prepared hurriedly and as being riddles with inaccuracies. Just over a year ago when the development corporation held a symposium in the Institution of Civil Engineers across the road and the same questions were asked, I later received the written affirmation that some of the surveys had not yet been completed.

Mr. Morgan: I defer to my hon. Friend's vastly superior knowledge of the geology of south Wales and elsewhere. My hon. Friend was not one of the geologists I was quoting, but his intervention further reinforces my argument.
In the last minute or so of my speech, I shall refer to the state that the Bill should be in if it were to deserve a carry-over. The thing that repels me most about granting the Bill a carry-over is simply the extremely corrupt and corrupting procedure by which it has arrived here from the other House. I refer to the fact that a Secretary of State can set up an urban development corporation and then, having retired from politics, become involved in a monitoring and regulatory body which has a vital set of decisions to make about water quality, which is critical to the success or otherwise of the Bill in achieving what is stated in its preamble, and that he can then get a directorship with a major company, which is easily the largest landholder in the area covered by the compulsory purchase order.
That is a preposterous situation, especially for Conservative Members. After all, the ABP company was a nationalised company which, in general, Conservative Members were extremely proud to privatise. However, in Cardiff it was renationalised with the setting up of the urban development corporation, which included the whole area of Cardiff docks in its compulsory purchase order. We then found that, following the acquisition of new directors, the company was to be privatised again and to be exempted from the compulsory purchase order procedure and that a profit-sharing formula was to be set up between the urban development corporation, the nationalised industry, and the former nationalised industry, ABP. That will cause deep misgivings to anybody involved with the compulsory purchase order affecting Cardiff docks. How can it make sense for a nationalised industry to be privatised, then renationalised in respect of its Cardiff docklands, and then privatised again?
All that I can say about the previous Secretary of State is that power is delightful, and absolute power is absolutely delightful. The carry-over motion gives us the chance to stop the process. I have already mentioned one defect in the Bill, which has plainly failed its MOT. Surely it is time that the House took it right off the road.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am very much encouraged by the debate and by the evidence that it is occasionally permissible to criticise or even oppose one's leader. Heaven knows, the private Bill procedure is cumbersome enough and I know that it can be objected to, but it is nowhere near as cumbersome as a public inquiry. However, that is rather like saying that Tantalus's job was an easy one compared with that of Sisyphus. The plain fact

is that the combination of our procedures for dealing with private Bills and with public inquiries is one reason why we have such difficulty carrying through any great enterprise in this country.
Such difficulties remind me of the problems of trying to pass the Soviet driving test in the good old days before glasnost when I was at the embassy in Moscow. During the two years I was there in the 1950s, nobody succeeded in passing the Soviet driving test. There was always some point on which one could be made to fail.
It has emerged that Opposition Members are somewhat divided in their attitude to the merits of the Bill and to the acceptability of the carry-over motion. By and large, the opposition comes, as it obviously would, from those hon. Members whose constituencies will not benefit. I say straight away that my constituency will not benefit from this scheme in any way. Cardiff is a long way from us in north Wales. It takes a long time to get there. Indeed, it takes a lot longer to get to Cardiff than it does to get to London or Birmingham, and it certainly takes a great deal longer than it does to get to Liverpool.
My constituents are much more concerned about the horrible things that are being done in Liverpool bay, where sewage is being dumped all over the place and is being washed up on our beaches. My constituents believe that far too much fuss is made about south Wales, where people persist in playing football with a ball that is the wrong shape.
Therefore, it is not on constituency grounds that I support the Bill. I support it because this is an imaginative scheme that will make Cardiff one of the most exciting and beautiful cities in the world. In the long run, what is good for Cardiff must be good for Wales and what is good for Wales will in the end be good for my constituency.
It is a national failing that in Wales and in the United Kingdom as a whole, except at moments of supreme national peril, we are unable to rise to the level of events. I cite in evidence most of the reactions to the momentous events in eastern Europe. I cannot conceive of the kind of debate that we have had so far taking place in the French or German Parliaments. The debate is befugged with parish pump and other procedural objections. France and Germany are used to great national undertakings. One can see the evidence when one visits Paris. Although some people may regret some of the recent constructions of President Mitterrand and Mr. Chirac, undoubtedly the citizens of Paris now take great pride in them, however much they may have argued at the time.
The reluctance of the British Government and people to think big has been well exemplified in the debates on the Channel tunnel. The consequence for us in Wales is that we will not get the maximum benefit from the tunnel because of our petty-minded approach to the construction of the road and railway systems that are necessary to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel are spread throughout the country. Witness in contrast the attitude of the French Government, who are building roads and railways to ensure that the prosperity of the tunnel is conveyed throughout northern and western France.
I know that there are valid doubts about the barrage scheme and that people are worried about the effect on bird migration—I believe that those worries are overstated—and about the effect on the micro-climate. I have some doubts, too, about whether the quality of the architecture will match the boldness of the concept. However, by and large it seems a bold and imaginative scheme. It will create


jobs and make Cardiff one of the great cities of the world. I am glad to be here to support the Bill and the carry-over motion.

Mr. Ron Davies: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on the way in which he presented his case. I know that he has worked hard with the promoters and that he has a close relationship with individuals on the development corporation and in south Glamorgan. We all recognise that in presenting the Bill he is performing what he sees to be his proper duty. Needless to say, I disagree with almost all that he said.
My hon. Friend said that there were two important elements to his case: first, jobs; and secondly, the environment. His case on jobs was that the barrage was necessary because it would create jobs not only during its construction, but in terms of the opportunities for development. That is his case and that of the development corporation and the county council. Indeed, I understand that it was the subject of much detailed examination in the House of Lords and that their Lordships came to the conclusion that the case had been proved.
I am not convinced of that. I have examined the evidence that was presented to the House of Lords, and it remains an assertion that the construction of the barrage will per se provide an attractive opportunity for private capital to come in, to the tune of £1 billion, and provide all the job opportunities that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) suggested. That is bunkum. There is no evidence to support that assertion. I have questioned closely the people involved in the development corporation, including the chairman and the chief executive. I have asked for evidence. I have asked those concerned to name one company that is prepared to say, "With the barrage I will come. Without it I will not come." The development that has taken place, in Cardiff in the past 12 to 18 months is evidence that the barrage is not necessary.
We want to see the redevelopment of Cardiff, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, and the opportunities of the docklands properly developed. We appreciate that the motor for that must be public expenditure and, because we support that, we applaud and welcome the initiatives of the past 18 months.
Those new developments precede the barrage. Although it is well known in south Wales that there are major objections, to the barrage, those investments have still taken place because people have said, "We are prepared to invest even though the barrage might not eventually be developed."
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I have a different understanding of the word "environment", as will emerge during the debate. He is concerned with the environment in terms of opportunities for its enjoyment by individuals—new housing, schools and social facilities. In other words, he is thinking of the enjoyment that would be derived from looking out across the lake, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) described as varying in colour between green and brown. That is the environment as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth

understands it, and he believes that the construction of a barrage would enhance the environment. I disagree with him.
Numerous letters that have circulated among hon. Members have said that we are considering essentially a Labour case, and it is a pity that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), who made that point, is no longer in his place. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has written to hon. Members, as has Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, saying that this is a Labour initiative. The letters are freely available, so I will not quote them.
I wish to make it clear, especially to some of my hon. Friends who may be undecided about which way to vote on this issue, that this is not a Labour party scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West pointed out that the scheme was the brainchild of Nicholas Edwards. He conceived it, set up the development corporation and developed a sweetheart relationship with south Glamorgan. I appreciate why that occurred. He has got south Glamorgan to present the case and, politics being what it is, those concerned have worked hard and have got support from the TUC and some of the party organisations in Cardiff.
But for every unit of the party supporting the scheme, at least one other opposes it. So if there is a Labour involvement in the scheme, the opposition to it is being led by the Labour party. Three of the four constituency parties in Cardiff oppose it. My county council of mid-Glamorgan was not even consulted about the scheme, despite the major regional impact that it would have. It was horrified by some of the implications.
My district council area of Rhymney valley, which is Labour controlled—we do not even see a Conservative candidate at election time—is opposed to it. With one exception, all Members who represent the valleys are opposed to it. In other words, if there is a Labour involvement, the Labour party and the environmentalist lobby are leading the opposition to the scheme.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good case for the virility of the Labour party in being able to debate issues strongly in local communities in south Wales, and he is right to emphasise that. The Labour county council took the initial risk of the investment to build the new county headquarters and Atlantic wharf. They took that risk at an early stage and everything else has followed from that investment. That is why the scheme has been described as a Labour initiative.

Mr. Davies: If it was that much of a risk, I am sure that those concerned would have been surcharged by now by the district auditor. We appreciate what my hon. Friend says and we applaud what south Glamorgan has done. But it is not south Glamorgan's scheme. It is Nick Edwards' brainchild and those hon. Members who were here before 1987 know what Nick Edwards was about. He was concerned with the exploitation of the environment in his involvement in multinational mining companies. As far back as 1972 he was christened "Globtik Nick" because of his involvement in attempts to improve the marine environment in west Wales, when his companies were polluting our natural environment. He has now opted out, and is chairman of the National Rivers Authority.
I believe that the barrage will fail, and perhaps we should make it clear that our objective is to kill it. Let no


one be in any doubt about that. I believe that it will be discredited as the measure proceeds through Parliament, and I shall ensure that every possible method of objection is used during its passage through the House. I believe that either the funding will be withdrawn and it will be seen to be unrealistic, or that in two or three years' time a Labour Government will withdraw funding from the scheme. Whatever happens tonight and whatever happens to the Bill, the barrage will never be built.
If the barrage is built, it will go down in history as a monumental folly. In the 1960s the experts told us that we could solve our housing problems by building high-rise intensive developments on green field sites in the valleys of south Wales. Not one Member who represents the valleys could fail to give examples of such estates to show how we now recognise the mistakes that were made in the 1960s. The experts told us then that that was the way to regenerate. Indeed, for the past 30 years the so-called experts have been telling us about the importance of nuclear power. We now recognise what a monumental folly nuclear power has been. The barrage is the latest instalment in that series of mistakes.
I urge hon. Members to ask themselves, as they vote on this issue, how they will justify to future generations—we are all family people—giving support to a scheme which took an area classified as having the highest environmental value and destroying it to create at best a lake of dubious value for no economic justification, simply to provide glitzy housing, which is how the scheme is described by the South Glamorgan promoters. The chief executive of South Glamorgan has gone on record as saying that the scheme is about glitzy housing.
Presumably the philosophy is that we could have the barrage and the lake, and then the developers could arrive to build Barratt and Wimpey homes, thereby providing glitzy housing so that the yuppies can flood into Cardiff, live in those nice little houses looking over the lake and thereby bring economic regeneration to the heartland of Cardiff.
How shall we justify that to generations yet unborn, when the price that we are having to pay for it is the destruction of a vital part of our environment? Such beliefs have no values other than those of materialism. They have no objectives other than consumption. They consider no obligation to the wider community and they recognise no responsibility to future generations. That is why we oppose the motion.
There has been no evaluation of the environmental costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and I have intensive quarrying interests in our constituencies. When we are told about the environmental impact of the scheme, we are entitled to ask where the materials for it will come from. Clearly, they will come from our constituencies. The developers will rip the heart out of Garth woods, another site of special scientific interest, to get the building materials they need. They will rip the heart out of the limestone and sandstone quarrying areas of the valleys to construct the barrage.

Dr. Kim Howells: Could that be the reason why Mid-Glamorgan has refused permission for the quarrying company in question to extend its quarry, whereas South Glamorgan council has deferred making a decision on the quarry, possibly until the end of this and similar debates?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
Professor Pearce had a message for us when he presented his report to the Government in the summer. I would be happy for the barrage scheme to be evaluated along the lines of the principles which Professor Pearce suggested. There would then be an evaluation of the true environmental costs. It would put a value on the energy consumption of such a scheme, on the raw materials used and on the alternative projects that could be developed. If the barrage was being provided for reasons of overwhelming national importance or even overwhelming regional importance, or if there were proven reasons for the regeneration of Cardiff, we would have to consider our position. However, the arguments for the barrage are specious. It is simply to provide an opportunity for glitzy housing and we are entitled to say, "Look at the environmental costs."

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Davies: Many hon. Members want to participate in the debate and I hope to reach a rapid conclusion.

Mr. Cryer: I assure my hon. Friend that the Bill has not gone unnoticed in Bradford. A constituent of mine who is a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has urged me to examine the Bill. She is also concerned about the environmental impact of the Bill upon birdlife in her area. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on that because she has expressed great anxiety in cogent terms. [Interruption.]

Mr. Davies: I can hear muttering among the natives; my hon. Friends obviously think that there is a fair chance I will come to the question of birdlife.
I should like to put on record the view of the RSPB:
The RSPB, and other wildlife conservation bodies including the Glamorgan Wildlife Trust and the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, are opposed to the barrage proposal since it will permanently flood the intertidal lands that provide important feeding grounds for 5,000–8,000 wild birds which regularly use Cardiff Bay in Winter.
Cardiff Bay is of high wildlife importance and has been notified, by the Nature Conservancy Council, as a Site of Special Scientific Interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
In biological terms, the bay is an integral part of the wider Severn estuary which is of international importance for shelduck, redshank, knot and dunlin and meets the criteria for protection under the European Community Directive on the Convervation of Wild Birds and the Ramsar Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands.
Therefore, we are talking about a site of special scientific interest. This is the first occasion since the Wildlife and Countryside Act was passed that we have had a Government-sponsored scheme that will destroy, in its entirety, a site of special scientific interest—[Interruption.] I can hear my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) muttering away. As I said, this is the first time that a Government-sponsored scheme has proposed the destruction of a site of special scientific interest in its entirety. I am concerned because there may be other such proposals in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth might say that, although it is a site of special scientific interest, there are overriding conditions and therefore we must sacrifice it. If we do not object to this proposal, hon. Members will not be able to object to the next one or the one after that. The principle must be established that a site of special scientific interest is just


that. We do not assess it—that decision is made by the Government's specialist advisers—so who are we to say that we should sacrifice this site? If we do so, we will have to be prepared to sacrifice all the others.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Davies: Let me get on a little further.
We have international responsibilities towards wildlife. We all hold up our hands in horror at the destruction of the rain forests in South America. We all make the case for the preservation of the African elephant and we argue for the wilderness of Antarctica. However, if we expect others in this world of ours to recognise their responsibilities, we have to recognise ours.
Our islands have a unique environment. We have broad ice-free estuaries which offer a unique opportunity to the migrating wildfowl throughout the north Atlantic. That is our contribution to international conservation. If we want to argue that others should fulfil their responsibilities, we must put our hands on our hearts and recognise our international responsibilities. We are bound by our commitment to Europe and an international convention to protect this area, yet we are proposing to destroy it to build glitzy housing.

Mr. Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: Yes, but this must be the last time.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend does not recognise the likelihood that if one habitat is interfered with, the birds will find alternative habitats. That happens along the estuary where a large habitat—Collister Pill in Magor—was destroyed by drainage patterns. The birds in the Severn estuary found alternative habitats. Does my hon. Friend agree that the relative population of the birds in the estuary—I understand that it is less than the bird population in Chichester harbour—is light? There are big mud flats and wetlands on both sides of the estuary and the birds, which are more robust in finding alternative habitats than has been suggested, would find them. My hon. Friend is taking a pessimistic view of the likely result.

Mr. Davies: I do not wish to be unkind to my hon. Friend, but I am appalled at his lack of understanding of the issues. The RSPB has studied the matter carefully.

Mr. Flynn: rose—

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend has had his say. The RSPB has made it clear that there is no spare capacity and birds cannot move on to the next convenient harbour.
If the Bill is passed and the barrage is constructed, we will be removing a habitat and would kill the migratory wildfowl that depend on the harbour just as surely as if we were shooting or poisoning them. The irony is that if we were shooting or poisoning them, there would be uproar.

Mr. Flynn: rose—

Mr. Davies: I must continue. My hon. Friend has had his say and his view was not accepted by the RSPB.

Mr. Flynn: The society did not respond to my letter.

Mr. Davies: If my hon. Friend has not received replies from the RSPB, he must take it up with the society.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the view of the Nature Conservancy Council. It is independent and objective. It petitioned against the Bill when it was presented to the House in 1987, and it is now further resolved in its objections to it—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should go away and find out the facts. The Nature Conservancy Council is opposed to the Bill because it thinks that we are abdicating our international responsibilities.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth introduced the motion, he suggested that both South Glamorgan and the development corporation would look for an alternative site. I understand that they have done that, but I have to destroy that hope in case hon. Members might think it a possibility. They are proposing to scoop out the lagoon up the estuary from the bay. It is only 10 per cent. of the size of the tidal mudflats that will be destroyed. Given the habitat around the margins, in terms of providing alternative feeding grounds it will be virtually useless.
There are two other considerations. No one yet knows how to construct alternative feeding grounds. They will be unable to construct the unique environment that currently exists in the bay. It is washed at high tide and drained by two rivers bringing in high levels of nutrients to fertilise the mud and provide the invertebrates on which the birds will live. They do not know how to do that. They say that we should maintain it. In practice, that means that every year or two someone will come along—presumably in a JCB—to scoop out the mud, dump it in the Severn estuary and say to the birds, "There's your environment back." It is nonsense to suggest that. If South Glamorgan or the development corporation are serious about providing alternative habitats, they must come up with something better than what has been proposed so far.
I conclude by expressing the hope that the argument—

Mr. Barry Porter: Shortly.

Mr. Davies: I could continue for a long time. The hon. Gentleman intervened earlier and I replied to his point. He did the House a discourtesy, however, by leaving his place. I can do without his churlish interjections from his seat below the Gangway on the Government Benches.
I do not want to turn the debate into a valleys versus Cardiff confrontation. I know that all my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the valleys oppose the Bill, and I hope that they will have the opportunity to speak against it.

Mrs. Llin Golding: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. I do not wish to be discourteous to her, but she represents a constituency a long way from the areas that will be affected by the Bill. I know that she has a long family tradition in my constituency, but she knows that in this place we represent the constituents who elect us. We speak for the people who elect us, not the people whom our fathers or forefathers represented.

Mrs. Golding: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: Very well.

Mrs. Golding: I am from the Welsh valleys. I was brought up in the valleys and I lived in the area for a long


time. I worked in Cardiff and I worked at Cardiff bay at the Hamadryad hospital. I saw the environment in which people worked. I do not forget. My memory is long. I am proud of Cardiff and I hope that the Bill will be carried. I want Cardiff to be a city of which we can all be ecstatically proud.

Mr. Davies: I was right in my initial judgment not to give way to my hon. Friend. She presented us with an interesting anecdote, but nothing more. As I said, we represent the constituents who elect us. I accept that my hon. Friend has a history of contact with the south Wales valleys, but she represents an English constituency and she must speak for that constituency.

Mrs. Godling: Will my hon. Friend—

Mr. Davies: Be quiet, Llin, and give the rest of us a chance.
I do not want to turn the discussion into a valleys versus Cardiff argument. I recognise that Cardiff is the capital of Wales, and we respect Cardiff as the regional capital. It is the regional economic and financial capital for us in the valleys. We want it to prosper and we shall support any measures that will allow the regeneration of derelict uplands and bring renewed prosperity to the valleys. It is folly, however, to believe that that can be done at the expense of our natural heritage. To believe that is to make a monumental mistake, but that is what the Bill proposes. Those issues have not been addressed in the Bill's passage through Parliament. That is why I believe that we should call a halt to this nonsense.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): The House will appreciate how much I, as a Cardiff Member, should like to participate in the debate. In the circumstances, I think that it would be more helpful if I were briefly to state the Government's position.
The Government have a substantial interest in the Bill's objectives, as it is the intention that the cost of building the barrage will be met by the development corporation, with the assistance of grant in aid provided by the Welsh Office. The proposal clearly raises many important economic, technical and environmental issues, and these have given rise to understandable concerns that will need to be considered properly and carefully. The best way of doing that is surely to allow the Bill to proceed to the new Session.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The
Minister cannot just resume his place—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. As I understand it, the Minister has resumed his place.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister intervened as a Minister of the Crown and not as a Cardiff Member. He stated that the Government and his Department have a substantial interest in the Bill, inasmuch as the Department will produce the grant for the development corporation. The Minister has not told us anything about the cost implications for central Government expenditure. Surely he has a duty to the House to make an estimate of the cost implications. It is a matter of considerable concern.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I might call the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to make a speech.

Mr. Rowlands: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech, I shall call him.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I would be sad if hon. Members should interfere, in a sense, in what is essentially a discussion between colleagues in south Wales and introduce bad temper. We are anxious to resolve an honest difference of opinion that affects our constituencies in different ways. We do not need lessons from anyone on how we relate to Cardiff. Those of us who live in valley constituencies have recently had to undergo dramatic experiences as a result of the contraction of the coal industry. We are most anxious, therefore, that all schemes in south Wales that will provide jobs are undertaken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) was right when he said that many people travel from the valley communities into Cardiff. Indeed, the wealth of Cardiff was built on valley constituencies. That was done at the time when the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) was the branch secretary of the Penallta colliery. As a miner and union official, he contributed substantially to the well-being of my village, which is where my hon. Friend was brought up. That is one example of why we do not want a bad-tempered discussion.
It must be accepted that there are valid objections to the Bill. I am in favour of the development of south Cardiff and the docklands. There are no ifs and buts about that. However, it is utterly beyond me to understand why a barrage has to be built. If a minor barrage were built near the Hamadryad hospital, for example, extra land would be available to add substantially to what is in the docklands, but the building of the proposed barrage would not add one acre on which factories or offices could be built. It would provide mooring spaces for boats in a marina. A knock-on effect on the valleys was mooted at one stage, but I cannot visualise many people from the Rhondda rushing to park their boats in a marina in Cardiff.
After all, we are Barry boys. When I was a young kid, the best trips I had were one from the chapel and one from the club down to Barry. I suppose that from now on the people from Rhondda will be going to Cardiff to sail their boats from the Marina. If an argument can be advanced that there is a shortage of mooring places in south Wales, I shall support the Bill on that basis. That argument is not advanced, but many others are.
I began to be interested in the Bill when I was invited to attend a symposium of the Institution of Civil Engineers. As an engineering geologist, I received the accompanying technical document with personal interest. I went to the symposium and met a finely collected bunch of people. The previous Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Crickhowell, was there as a sort of appointee. He held forth and entertained us extremely well. I am not complaining about that. Towards the end of the meeting I got up and asked what I thought were reasonable technical questions. Thereafter I was assailed for daring to speak out against the project. I was accused of being valley-minded. Some people who have left the valleys think that that


means small-minded, but we who live in the valleys with our great traditions of culture take pride in being called valley minded.
I thought that something wrong was going on, so I asked the Cardiff Bay development corporation some questions. Before ever there was any talk about birds or the RSPB, I wrote to the corporation in all good faith asking about the surveys. Back came the answers: they were not finished. I asked about groundwater and hydrological surveys; they were not finished either. The geological surveys had not been finished. In other words, the whole civil engineering part of the Bill was predicated on surveys that had not been carried out or had been inadequately carried out.
I would not object to carrying over the Bill if my fears had been satisfied, but they have not been. To be sure, a comprehensive report was done by paid consultant geologists or civil engineers. These independent experts have driven a horse and cart through some of the arguments, which do not stand up to examination.
I began to become a little suspicious about what was driving the motor, so I thought I would take a look at the engine. Then I received an invitation as, I am sure, did other hon. Members. I remember when Associated British Ports brought in a Bill and laid on a champagne supper for Conservative Members who bothered to turn up to support the company. The promoters of this Bill have gone further. Any hon. Member who would like to visit Cardiff can be looked after and can stay the weekend there at the expense of the promoters.

Mr. Terry Patchett: Why?

Mr. Rogers: The company has written to every Member for Parliament offering to pay their expenses while in Cardiff. This puts the validity of the Bill in question. I am sure that none of my hon. Friends would be a party to such corruption, although I do not know about Conservative Members, who take a slightly different attitude to these matters.
I am not against the development of Cardiff docklands—

Mr. Barry Porter: If this is all as daft as the hon. Gentleman says, does it not follow that most of the members of Cardiff city council are daft and incompetent, that South Glamorgan county council is daft and incompetent and that at least half of his hon. Friends who represent south Wales are daft? I find that terribly difficult to believe.

Mr. Rogers: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has links with Associated British Ports, but I am worried about his interests in this matter—it is rather unusual for him to be here at this time of night.
I have reservations about some of the people involved with the Bill. For instance, Lord Crickhowell was the initial promoter of the scheme, and his peculiar position in all this has already been described by my hon. Friends. He browbeat the county council and the city council by telling them that they were going to have this urban development corporation—with or without local government representation. It is only fair to point out that it took what was on offer. Then the noble Lord became the chairman of the the National Rivers Authority. One of the problems about

the barrage is that it could lead to pollution in a quantity that no one has yet properly surveyed. The Taff and Ely rivers drain in behind the barrage, the Taff combining with the Rhondda and other tributaries. These are two of the fastest rising rivers in the United Kingdom.
I am not a civil engineer or hydrologist, but I have been involved in such schemes and I know enough to realise that there are doubts about whether this scheme, as proposed, will allow the pollution to be taken away. Lord Crickhowell is a director of Associated British Ports, which is strange, when we consider that the main beneficiaries of the scheme and the main land owners in Cardiff bay are not the local authority—Labourcontrolled or otherwise—or the people of Cardiff but Associated British Ports, which owns at least 160 acres. So the previous Secretary of State, Lord Crickhowell, originally promoted the scheme, then became chairman of the National Rivers Authority and is also a director of Associated British Ports. If he carries on in these circles he might well disappear—if he does, I suggest that the seagulls mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) may help him to do it.
The people of Cardiff want jobs, and it is certain that my constituents will also work in the project, but there is plenty of land where the dockyards are now. The vice-chairman of the development corporation, Lord Brooks, and I go back many years, to the time when the docklands consisted of a vibrant community of mixed races and cultures. He has been closely associated with the area and wants to develop it in the same way as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). We do not disagree. I do not think that jobs going to Cardiff will be taken from the valleys.

Mr. Michael: Does my hon. Friend agree that the House of Lords Select Committee accepted the economic argument for the necessity of the barrage; that the NRA accepts that its job is to ensure that the water quality is adequate and meets the requirements of the Bill; and that for that reason the Bill should be carried over so that these matters can be tested properly in Committee?

Mr. Rogers: Because the Bill is in such a bad state, it should be taken away and brought back. It is riddled with holes and inaccuracies. The Select Committee was very worried about the pollution from foul, untreated sewage and industrial effluents deposited in the bay by the rivers Taff and Ely. Swimming will be banned. Not so long ago someone fell off a raft in the middle of the Taff and died of Weil's disease, which is associated with rats' urine. That sounds like a case for the NRA. If the National Rivers Authority is so worried about pollution after the barrage is built it is about time it became worried now because there are already great problems of pollution.
I have grave doubts about the need for the scheme. The only argument in favour of the barrage is that it will provide a waterscape to attract business and housing—in other words, we cannot have a factory in south Wales unless we provide a marina; we cannot have houses unless we provide a marina. The Government continually say that they are doing wonders for the south Wales economy and have attracted new industries to it. But the Cardiff barrage has not yet been built, so why is it needed?
How much capital funding will be put into the Welsh Office? Will the Minister give us an assurance that that capital funding will come from the Government and not be


taken out of the allocation for Wales? If the barrage, which will provide a marina for yuppie boats, means that we cannot have vital infrastructure developments in the valleys where in some parts unemployment stands at 80 per cent., I will vote against the Bill all the way. However, if the Government intend only to finance infrastructure development in the dockland area, I will support it.
The Bill's promoters sent Members of Parliament a leaflet entitled "Groundwater. The Facts". That is a ridiculous parody of the facts. For example, it says:
Groundwater does not rise above ground level so cannot flood streets and open spaces.
That simply is not true. Groundwater does rise above surface level. That is how springs come out of the side of mountains. Groundwater does come to the surface. The intersection of the water table and the surface means that water will issue. If the groundwater is raised sufficiently, it will cause flooding. The leaflet is nonsense. That is why the report commissioned by the development corporation is itself technological nonsense.
The leaflet goes on to ask:
Will the barrage increase the risk of flooding?
We should not forget that we are talking about thousands of ordinary people. My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) may argue about whose homes will be flooded, but I will vote against any measure that will flood just one home. In my constituency, because of the precipitate nature of water run-off, people are affected by flooding, and when filthy water and sludge goes into a house and destroys a home it is a traumatic experience for the people who live there. If thousands are affected, there will be a thousand traumatic experiences. We should bear that in mind. It is not a matter of saying that only a few people or a few birds will be affected.
Although there will be no floods, a flood warning scheme will be set up. The leaflet says that the
Flood Warning Scheme will allow swollen rivers to be let out to the sea without adversely affecting water levels in the rivers.
There has been a reasonable estimate that the level of waters feeding into the barrage area will rise by at least 2 ft. The north end of Cardiff, west Cardiff and Cardiff Arms park have had substantial flood prevention schemes over the years because of the problems of flooding, but there will now be flooding from below, not necessarily from surcharge over the river banks.

Mr. Michael: indicated dissent.

Mr Rogers: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth shakes his head. He does not even believe what the promoters say. He does not even seem to know his own documents.
The leaflet says that if a person's basement becomes damp, it can be filled in and a new damp-proof floor will be provided.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Rogers: No, I shall not give way. [Interruption.] It is all right for my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) to mutter away. I am reading the promoters' hand-out. I shall pass it to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth later.

Mr. Michael: Misrepresentation.

Mr. Rogers: It is not. The leaflet says:

What is the present groundwater level? It varies throughout Cardiff but is much lower underground than in many parts of Britain.
That is a lie. Groundwater is much lower underground in many parts of Britain. Water tables in any area go up and down with the rainwater. In the summer they decline and in the winter they go up. Wherever there are rivers and streams there is groundwater. There is no such thing as an average level. It is misleading to suggest that the groundwater level in Cardiff is much lower underground than in many parts of Britain.
The document is open to question, but those are the facts on which the Bill went through the other place. A report from Wallace Evans for the consultants has been quoted. It is entitled, "Groundwater investigations. Final report. First issue, April 1989." That is riddled with inaccuracies. I am not saying that the problems cannot be overcome, but there is no need for them.
Cardiff can have its development. The development corporation can have its development. Jobs can be brought to the area and houses can be built. But there is no need to block up two river mouths. It will provide only a waterscape and parking space for boats.
Penarth is one of the most beautiful spots in south Wales. Many of my constituents go there at weekends. They visit Barry and the Vale of Glamorgan. Why spoil it for the sake of providing a parking space for boats?

Dr. Kim Howells: I fully understand right hon. and hon. Members' desire to do something for the docklands of Cardiff. It is one of the most devastated areas in Wales. Moreover, it suffered badly from architectral and sociological scarring in the 1960s, when some other bright promoters had an idea about modifying the docks in a particular way. They thought that they had the answer to all the troubles of the area by putting the population there into high-rise blocks, and we are still paying the price for that innovation. That was a terrible crime against the area and I hope that the House will bear it in mind when it comes to make a decision.
I must declare a direct interest in the matter. The proposed barrage is designed to trap the River Taff that flows past my front window—after which we are all named. I know the River Taff well. As a child I swam in its loveliest tributary, the Cynon. In its upper reaches, it was a beautiful Welsh stream, barely tainted by the collieries and works above it. However, three decades later, I doubt whether many parents who live along the banks of the Taff, the Cynon, the Rhondda, or any of the other tributaries, would relish their children even playing along the banks of the river, let alone swimming in it.
The river is now filthy. Its unkempt banks are festooned with all manner of discarded materials, from sanitary ware to leaflets promoting the virtues of the poll tax. They have been carried downstream to their temporary resting places by waters that are regularly subject to large infusions of raw and partly treated sewage from the treatment plants of the Welsh water authority—which, as has already been pointed out, was appointed by Lord Crickhowell in his previous capacity as Secretary of State for Wales. He now presides over the National Rivers Authority, which is supposed to ensure that companies such as Welsh Water clean up their operations and desist from fouling our streams and rivers.
I must admit that I have little confidence in the prospect of such clean-ups while the companies and authorities


involved display more evidence of incest in their origins than did the Borgias. The so-called derogations granted to the water authorities by the Government mean that they can put off their clean-ups for considerable periods of time. Meanwhile, stinking flows the Taff, miserable are the views that it provides, and scientifically fascinating is the quality of its water and the debris that it bears down to the proposed site for the barrage.
Let us take, for example, the phenomenon of discarded doors—not normally a species associated with the flora and fauna of our rivers and streams. The Taff is rich in these aquatic phenomena. Every time that the river rises—and in Wales it does so frequently—they float down from the fine communities of Merthyr, Aberdare and Rhondda, skipping across the flood waves of cream foam from the sewage works. The doors are evidence of the Welsh people's excellent preoccupation with the philosophy of recycling: they are often used as fences on allotments, which almost always back on to rivers. They are the only flat pieces of ground in the valleys. When the rivers rise, down come the doors; and where do they end up? If the barrage is built, they will end up upstream of it.
I am not suggesting that the Bill's promoters have made financial arrangements with allotment holders in an attempt to use the Taff in the way in which Canadian lumberjacks use their rivers, floating timber downstream in preparation for the construction of the barrage. Discarded doors would almost certainly not be the first choice of material for a dam designed to attract well-heeled tourists and the developers of luxury apartments to the vicinity, which is the Bill's intention.
What, then, will happen to those doors? Will they congregate on the surface of the new lake, and form a benign and ecologically desirable shield that will prevent the growth of stinking algae in the waters beneath—waters befouled by the sewage and rubbish that I have described? Or will the much-vaunted Cardiff Bay anti-pollution barge suck up them up along with the rest of the muck, offload them on to a mobile cesspit and cart the whole lot out to the Bristol channel, to dump them where all the rest of Welsh Water's sewage is dumped?
Some months ago, I spoke to a yachtsman at Pierhead in Cardiff about the currents that run along and through the estuaries of the Taff and Ely rivers—rivers that would be blocked by the barrage. The main problem, he told me, was not the currents, but the fear of having his hull smashed by a kitchen table.
With the Secretary of State's valleys initiative reputedly in full swing—although I have not seen much evidence of it along the banks of the Taff and the Ely in my constituency—the Welsh will be hard at work ripping out more doors and kitchen tables for replacement than ever before. Moreover, as our standards of living improve and our food consumption increases, the laws of nature will mean—as they often do—that sewerage systems will come under even greater pressure, and the rivers will receive an even more generous gift from the Welsh water authority's sewage outfall pipes.
Perhaps I am being too pessimistic. Perhaps I should urge the Bill's sponsors to approach the Prime Minister with a view to expressing a vote of confidence in the suitability of the Taff's waters for containment behind a

barrage. My constituents would be only too glad to arrange a suitable location for the right hon. Lady to take a running jump into the Taff, and to show by that gesture that we have all worried far too much about the quality of the water in our most famous river. What better advertisement could there be for the barrage than a photograph of the right hon. Lady doing a crawl upstream towards the sites of the Abercynon and Merthyr Vale collieries, which her Government, in their great wisdom, recently closed? I shall oppose the construction of the barrage until I see that photograph—until I see the Prime Minister's running jump into our maltreated river.
I, and many of my constituents, want firm gurantees and detailed timetables as to how and when the Government intend to force their incestous children—the National Rivers Authority and the Welsh water authority—to clean up the Taff and the Ely. The luxury apartments and the office blocks can wait for their shimmering lagoon, just as we in the valleys, who live along the banks of those rivers, have to wait for recognition by the Government that civil pride and environmental health take precedence over speculative profiteering.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). He has brought back some good humour to the Opposition Benches. I was worried that the warfare breaking out was too pronounced for the good of all hon. Members.
I support the carry-over motion. I have great enthusiasm for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It is an exciting proposal, but I have one great reservation about it.
The purpose of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is to fulfil the Cardiff bay regeneration strategy which looks forward to the creation over 10 years of 30,000 new jobs, 3 million to 4 million sq ft of new office space, 5 million to 6 million sq ft of industrial and business units and 6,000 dwellings, about a quarter of which are intended to be low-cost housing—most desirable in south Cardiff and Cardiff generally. I should have thought that there would be a good measure of agreement among hon. Members about such a proposal.
In general, who would not be excited by a package for which all who are involved in it are working so hard? I have been involved with the scheme for quite a long while—both before I became a Member of Parliament and since. I have sought to consider very carefully all that it involves. No Bill has ever come before the House with better or fuller local support.
That is typified by Cardiff's evening newspaper, the South Wales Echo. It has written many exhaustive articles on the subject and has shown considerable enthusiasm for the project since its inception. Its municipal editor, Mr. Michael Thomas, went to Baltimore two years ago. When he returned he wrote truthfully, I believe, when he said that he had seen Cardiff's proposed future in Baltimore and that the future worked. The South Wales Echo has provided us with the only independent, professionally conducted survey of what Cardiff people feel about the redevelopment of south Cardiff and the barrage. It shows that twice as many people are in favour of the proposed development in south Cardiff, including the barrage, as oppose it.
I am afraid that I have to reject much of what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said, especially his implication concerning the Mafia-like activities of the


South Glamorgan county council and Cardiff city council. I should have thought that such strong criticism would have come much more naturally from me than from him. I promise him that I shall continue to criticise the South Glamorgan county council, Labour-controlled, and Cardiff city council, Labour-Liberal dominated, whenever that criticism is deserved, but on this occasion I do not believe that it is deserved. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Morgan: I said that I offered no criticism of the local authorities involved.

Mr. Jones: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I thought that he implied that he was very critical of what they had done. It was a criticism that I could not share. I repeat my assurance that I shall criticise them as much as they deserve whenever they deserve criticism, but on this occasion I offer a tribute, on a strictly non-political basis, to the Labour and Conservative leaders of South Glamorgan county council, Lord Brooks and Councillor Gareth Neale, who have been very full-hearted and thorough in pursuing the proposal. Equally, I pay tribute to the Conservative and Labour leaders of Cardiff city council—Councillor Ron Watkiss and Councillor John Reynolds—who played important parts in the discussions. It occurs to me that three of those are on the board of Cardiff bay development corporation, as is Councillor Paddy Kitson, who has played a significant role in the considerations of this matter.
Councillor Paddy Kitson stood for re-election in May. His ward and the one alongside are the wards most affected by the proposals. When he stood for election as the Labour candidate, as did his neighbour, they were opposed by anti-barrage candidates. Although I would not have voted for either of the Labour candidates, they were re-elected with resounding majorities even against the anti-barrage candidates, the Conservative candidates and the other candidates who stood against them. That is a significant demonstration of how local people feel about the role of their local councillors in the project and the worth of the barrage project and the redevelopment of south Cardiff.
Mention has been made of the involvement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and his predecessor, and their support for the proposal. It is commendable and even admirable that Secretaries of State have been prepared to devote so much time and interest to giving their fullest support to such a proposal. Cardiff should be very grateful that they have supported all 'Our efforts. I should add that perhaps the founding fathers of the proposals were my predecessor and the predecessor of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), Lord Callaghan and the late Michael Roberts. Their views on this matter were probably the original catalyst for the redevelopment of south Cardiff. By no means would I take credit for the project as solely a Conservative idea. The Labour party, Lord Callaghan and everyone else in Cardiff had been involved right from the beginning. It is an excellent example of political parties coming together to achieve real benefit for the capital city of Wales.
While I am seeking to pay tribute to those who have worked so hard, it would be entirely inappropriate not to mention those who have been involved on the professional side, particularly the chief executive of South Glamorgan

county council, Mr. Michael Boyce, Mr. Iwan Humphreys and all the other officers of South Glamorgan county council, as well as Mr. Geoffrey Inkin and Mr. Barry Lane of the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
The relationship between the development corporation, the local authorities and everyone else involved has been a good one. That has been most important. It is quite right that the project was entrusted to a development corporation as the most appropriate way of moving forward. That said, it was inevitable that there should be some conflict and even dramatic moments in the press, but all has been happily resolved and the good relationship has been continuing.
It has been marked particularly by a willingness to accommodate every point of view and every possible problem that has been raised. South Glamorgan county council and Cardiff Bay development corporation have taken the lead in trying to identify the problems that have arisen with the south Cardiff redevelopment and the barrage proposal. The most comprehensive technical studies have been carried out and their findings have been met by a willingness to respond properly.
A particularly important clause is clause 12, which contains most important provisions for homes and for owners of property which might be affected by changes in the groundwater in Cardiff. The Cardiff flood action committee was equally inspirational in suggesting that such an important clause should be included in the Bill. That suggestion was immediately met, or anticipated, by a ready response from the promoters of the Bill.
The Bill provides for redevelopment with the barrage as its central feature. The barrage is fundamental for it brings about the greatest change to the landscape of south Cardiff. The mudflats at low tide are not an attractive feature. We have a rare opportunity to repair the effect of industrial change. How often we have to put up with industrial change and decay marking our landscape. The mudflats at Cardiff bay were created by the construction of Cardiff docks 150 years ago. The barrage will end those ugly and unattractive mudflats.

Mr. Ron Davies: Shame.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has had his say. I shall shortly express substantial agreement with what he said, but not on this point.
The barrage is a green proposal. Friends of the Earth opposed a marine development at Porthcawl because it did not include a barrage such as that proposed for south Cardiff. Its contention at the inquiry was that a barrage is essential to meet the forthcoming problems of the greenhouse effect.
Every possible attempt has been made to measure the worth of the barrage. In 1986, the Cardiff Bay development corporation commissioned Peat, Marwick, McLintock to carry out an independent appraisal of what the barrage can best be expected to achieve, not simply on a barrage or no-barrage basis but including the middle course of a mini-barrage. Peat, Marwick, McLintock estimated, on the best basis, that having no barrage as part of the south Cardiff redevelopment would attract £523 million of investment, that a mini-barrage would attract £607 million, but that the barrage would attract £1,051 million of private investment. It further estimated that no


barrage would generate 12,700 jobs, that a mini-barrage would generate 14,950 but that the barrage would generate 22,150 jobs.
Peat, Marwick, McLintock sought to measure that by comparing the amount of public sector capital being invested with private investment. No barrage would produce a ratio of private investment to public sector investment of 4·6:1, a mini-barrage would produce a ratio of 4·8:1, and the barrage 8·9:1. It next sought to calculate the net value of the proposal for the Cardiff area. No barrage would lead to greater expenditure than return and a loss of £61 million and a mini-barrage would lead to a loss of £113 million. The only positive return that it could identify was for the barrage, producing a return of £77 million. The study also showed similar declines in the residential sector, offices, industrial and business use and retail. It could even measure reduced achievement in the categories of leisure and open spaces, although the mini-barrage proposal produced less open space than no barrage.
That was an independent and persuasive appraisal. The economic case for the barrage is overwhelming, and it will be of much benefit to south Wales. We know from current studies that one third of the jobs in Cardiff are for commuters, most of whom live in the valleys. That is bound to be reflected in the new jobs created by the south Cardiff development. It will lead not to prosperity confined to Cardiff but to prosperity and worth for all south Wales.
In Cardiff and in the House tonight, many concerns have been expressed, such as concern about flooding. We in Cardiff all remember the flooding in 1979, when large parts of Cardiff were badly affected. Earlier in the 1960s there was flooding further afield that affected parts of my constituency in Gabalfa and Llandaff North. Time after time, it has been shown that the cause of flooding is the combination of heavy rain swelling the rivers and flowing down to Cardiff and meeting a high tide from the sea. Research shows that the barrage would assist in flood prevention because it would break the link between a high incoming tide and heavy rain flowing down the river. The concern about flooding is not a valid reason for not further pursuing the barrage.
The House of Lords Select Committee considered the quality of the water to be impounded behind the barrage and, in its kindly way, concluded that some of the more extreme suggestions—which we have heard again tonight—were unduly pessimistic. I suggest that hon. Members should look at the water at Atlantic wharf, if they have not already done so. That is an example, beside the new headquarters of South Glamorgan county council, of exactly the kind of water that will be present behind the barrage. It is not blue water, but we do not have blue water in Cardiff at the moment. It is not as bad as some of the water elsewhere, and it certainly defies the criticism that has already been made.

Mr. Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that lorryloads of algae had to be removed in early September from the Atlantic wharf water because the combination of sunlight warming the water and the high percentage of treated sewage coming down the river in the summer

resulted in algal blooms and that that would occur on a much larger scale in the much greater impounded waters of the bay.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that fact. As we all know, the waters behind the barrage will be properly managed, with all the appropriate technology. I think that the hon. Gentleman is confirming what can happen when there is proper management, while at the same time disabusing us of the idea that there will be a polluted lagoon behind the barrage.
Groundwater is another major concern. There is a general measure of agreement on this matter. It is another example of the willingness of the Cardiff Bay development corporation to respond to all the problems. Appropriate provision for a protected property area is made in clause 12, but the clause goes beyond that matter. I am happy to see that my constituency of Cardiff, North is provided for in the Bill. It has been pointed out to me that the provision goes much further—in fact worldwide. It has been said that any citizen, anywhere, could make a claim to the Cardiff Bay development corporation that he had somehow suffered because of the creation of the barrage. That is certainly much further than a general provision in legislation.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is not in the Chamber, strongly criticised the leaflet published by the Bill's promoters. He suggested more than once that the leaflet contained lies and that the statement that groundwater did not rise was not true. I am not a geologist. I have to listen to what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am afraid that he does not convince me. I imagine that there must be percolation of groundwater, but surely groundwater must still obey the laws of gravity. As he said in his example, groundwater can emerge from a mountain, but that is because gravity causes the water to flow down inside the mountain. I have not seen mountains in south Cardiff.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) was critical of the technical evidence before the House of Lords Select Committee. I understand that experts for the promoters and for the groundwater petitioners were called and that their evidence showed that there was only one matter of disagreement between them—that there had not been an opportunity within the period of the study to measure what happened during three or four days of heavy rain. Both groups of experts agreed that, even if the contention of the groundwater petitioners were true, there would be no effect beyond the protected property area, and that there was no need to extend it.
The House of Lords Select Committee fully considered this matter. I concur with the provisions which are outlined in the leaflet and the practical responses in terms of infilling and insulation. It is little wonder that the Select Committee's report said:
The Committee concluded that Clause 12 does provide a comprehensive set of measures to deal with the effects of rise in groundwater and that the procedures embodied in the Clause were fair.
I have a great reservation—on which I find myself in some measure of agreement with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies)—about the future of wading birds. In 1986, I expressed my concern in the House for the future of the site of special scientific interest. It is true that the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology has reported on the Taff-Ely estuary and has determined that it is not a site of international significance. The Royal Society for the


Protection of Birds, in its last publication, "The Complete Book of British Birds"—which was to celebrate 100 years of the RSPB—made no mention of the Taff-Ely estuary. The Institute of Terrestrial Ecology has said, however, that the site is of national significance. It has 1·2 per cent. of the British population of redshanks and dunlins. There is a risk of permanent loss and a need for compensation.
The SSSI is part of the Severn estuary SSSI, and while it is only 1 per cent. of the area, it includes 10 per cent. of the birds. The RSPB has told me that there are approximately 8,000 to 10,000 wading birds in the Taff-Ely estuary, and that the area is particularly significant for its redshank population. Redshanks are declining elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but thankfully, not in the Taff estuary, where the population of about 1,500 is staying firm.
I am glad that compensatory measures have been proposed in the Bill. That is an innovation which might be worthy of development elsewhere. They involve some 50 acres of land, at a cost of £3·5 million.
I understand that there will be discussions between the promoters of the Bill, the Nature Conservancy Council and the RSPB. Filling the barrage will take some weeks, and I hope that their discussions will also include the best time to fill the barrage, so that the best transition can be achieved.
My great regret is that no one can guarantee how effective the compensatory features will be. I greatly regret the likely loss of birds and the fact that we have to choose between the present and an uncertain future. I fervently hope that there will be progress towards a target of no loss.
So much time, effort and money has been put into the Bill that it would be a great tragedy if the motion were not passed this evening, and all that work were wasted. The important issues which must be given further consideration deserve to be put before a Select Committee of the House. I am confident that any new feature will be fully considered and that all those features we already know about will continue to have the fullest consideration. I hope that we can move forward, because I believe that the future is exciting.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I have given a great deal of consideration to the Bill and to whether to support the carry-over motion. I made a final check with the National Rivers Authority this afternoon, and I feel that the information it gave me negated one of the principal reasons for building the barrage.
I did not intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) when he mentioned the independent opinion poll. It was commissioned by the South Wales Echo, which has supported the barrage from the beginning and so is hardly a disinterested observer. A fine opinion poll has been conducted in Cardiff, where 423 people were interviewed, 190 from the affected area, spanning an age range of between 18 and 70-plus, which parallels the age structure of the population. Just over 50 per cent. were women. The outcome of that survey was that fewer than 7 per cent. favoured the barrage, 36 per cent. wanted the area to be cleaned up and landscaped, 27 per cent. thought that there should be further development with an emphasis on a wildlife site, 48 per cent. were in favour of a smaller barrage and 13 per cent. selected other options.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend suggests that there is a groundswell of opinion against the barrage. A number of candidates in recent elections stood on an anti-barrage platform. Can my hon. Friend say how many were successful? He has suggested that the South Wales Echo was partial in the poll which it published. How independent are the people who published the poll which he has mentioned?

Mr. Griffiths: I shall make no comment on the partiality of the people I mentioned, as I believe—the same is true of the Echo—that they have their own commitment and selected their sample in good faith. I do not think that that is an issue. I think my hon. Friend knows that it is rare for one issue to dominate an election, whether people stand for a political party or as independent candidates.
I shall move on to some of the substantive points. I oppose the private Bill procedure in principle. One reason for that is that projects carried through under the private Bill procedure are automatically excluded from the rigours of European Community directive on environmental assessment, so a proper environmental impact assessment based on the EC criteria cannot be made.
I have been approached on the matter several times and I was first approached on it when I was the Member of the European Parliament for South Wales, a constituency that includes Cardiff. I was especially struck by a letter from a friend who is an engineer and describes himself also as an angler, conservationist and ratepayer of Cardiff. He made several salient points about the whole scheme, and was especially upset that the promoters should have gone ahead with the Bill before they had completed the studies that were necessary to ensure that they could overcome the concerns expressed when news of the project first came to light. My friend mentioned problems such as environmental pollution, sedimentation build-up and difficulties for migratory fish, which I should have liked to deal with in detail on other occasions when I had more time.
However, I shall deal in a little detail with water quality. It seems that one of the main reasons why the barrage was mooted originally was to provide an area that would not only look nice, but would be a centre for water sports. Such a target is now impossible. When I contacted the National Rivers Authority this afternoon to find out its feelings about the barrage, it told me that although it would be possible to meet the E. coli coliform standard of the EC directive on bathing water quality, there would be huge problems with the microbiological quality of the water and specifically, the organism called leptospira, which carries Weil's disease which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) mentioned earlier, is a killer. As a result, the National Rivers Authority, in conjunction with the environmental health department of Cardiff city council, has made it clear that it will allow no water contact sports in the lagoon created by the barrage.
Furthermore, when I questioned the experts at the National Rivers Authority, they said that there would be a problem in providing a reasonable quality of water that would even look acceptable, although it would not be safe for anyone to fall into it. Although the Bill provided for a scheme for water sports, there are question marks over the times of flooding. It has already been said this evening that the Taff and its tributaries tend to rise very quickly so that there are problems about the boom and the other provisions that are intended to take out debris and the sewage that makes its way down the river. I remind the


House that a sewage mains under the Taff once burst and for a time raw sewage flowed down the river. The problems of coping with the River Taff in spate and of removing the debris mean that the measures might not deal effectively with the problem.

Mr. Rogers: I assure my hon. Friend that raw sewage already enters the tributaries feeding the lagoon. The Welsh water authority is not renewing the trunk sewer systems in some of the valleys, so raw sewage enters the river.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend.
I do not oppose the development of Cardiff docklands but, with all the problems associated with providing a lagoon, the purpose of which is no longer relevant because water quality is not right, I hope that we shall throw out the carry-over motion and ask the promoters, if they must come back with a new scheme, to do so without the barrage.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I am the only non-Welsh Member to have spoken so far in the debate. I wish to speak because I am an elected member of the council for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I have taken a close interest in the matter, as has the society, which is Europe's largest voluntary organisation concerned with the matter. It has members in every constituency.
I have another reason for wishing to speak, which has nothing to do with the promoter of the Bill or the people behind it. The procedure on private Bills is a corrupt system which should be ended. The matter would be better dealt with by a public inquiry in Cardiff than by the House.
Normally, I would not wish to become involved in any issue that is mainly the concern of the people of Cardiff but, as has already been said, the bay is of national significance because of its value for wildlife and conservation. It is to that aspect that I shall address my remarks.
I accepted a kind invitation from the Cardiff Bay development corporation to meet it in Cardiff. I must add that I travelled there at my own expense, during my holidays. While I had a meeting with my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), my wife and family were let loose in Cardiff, which was of more benefit to Cardiff city centre than to me. I had an opportunity to see the problems at first hand, so I speak as someone who has taken the trouble to go to Cardiff and talk to the corporation to hear both sides of the argument.
Conservative Members spoke about mud, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that mud in Cardiff stinks. It may stink now, but that is caused by the sewage outfalls and effluents in the rivers Taff and Ely. Those effluents will be trapped behind the barrage if it is constructed. The scheme could be a potential asset to the city if the money for the barrage went instead to clean up the bay, landscape the area and maximise its attraction to wildlife.
I was taken down to look at the mud. The visit was carefully timed, so that I could see the vast expanses of mud at low tide. My guides said, "Just look at that." I

thought that it was an attractive sight, but I accept that not everyone would share my view. I noted that there was a substantial housing development in Penarth dock. It was popular and the houses had sold well, even though they overlooked the mudflats. While there may be people who would not want to buy a house overlooking mudflats, many people would be delighted with the ever-changing scenery of a tidal estuary with the tide coming in and out, the ebb and flow, the birds' moods and the call of birds on the wing, which are all attractive. Some developers have made it clear that they do not need the barrage in order to build homes and attract inward investment. Some of the figures that have been quoted have been mathematical rather than relating to reality.
The displacement of bird species from Cardiff bay is of national importance to a number of species, particularly redshanks, dunlins and knots. It is not true to say that those species can simply move out of Cardiff bay and find a nice vacant mudflat in the Severn estuary. Those feeding areas are already occupied and would not take any more feeding species. The birds would either displace the species that are there already or, even worse, by competing for food in a reduced feeding area, ensure that none of the species on those feeding grounds would get enough energy. If there was a cold snap during the winter, it would be likely that large numbers of species would be unable to survive.
It is also likely that migrating birds which are travelling through the Cardiff bay area would be unable to feed adequately to build up their body fats for the migration. The mortality rate in the species could be greater than the present population.
A paper written by M. E. Moser, entitled "Importance of UK Estuaries for Waders and Wildfowl", bears out these points:
For example, the numbers of redshanks on the firth of Clyde crashed during the 1980s, probably as a result of a decrease in the available food resources. There have been massive declines in bartailed godwits, knots and dunlins on the Cheshire/Welsh Dee estuary".
When there is already a decline in species because of loss of feeding grounds and habitat, we cannot displace birds from Cardiff Bay and expect them to survive.
I pay tribute to the development corporation and to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who is genuinely concerned about these conservation aspects. The Bill's promoters deserve some credit for taking these matters seriously and trying to meet the genuine points which have been put forward by the conservationists.
The Wentloog proposal is interesting and radical in terms of providing an adequate alternative feeding ground. Unfortunately, at the moment there is insufficient information to determine whether it will be completely successful. I am not sure whether the enormous resources would be available to protect a site of this sort from the inevitable silting.
I realise that time is short, and this is a debate on the carry-over motion. If there is a Second Reading debate, I should like to expand these points. In terms of the carry-over motion, arguments from people such as me, conservation organisations and development corporations hinge purely on the barrage. The promoters should consider taking the Bill back to concentrate on the developments which we all support. The regeneration is


imaginative and practical for Cardiff, but we do not need a barrage; by abandoning it and transferring resources, we could create an even better and more successful scheme.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Any hon. Member who speaks in a debate on a private Bill which appears, at least in its title, to be a local Bill, has to justify his or her intervention. There is one basic reason for an intervention: if the Bill has broader, national implications. My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and other hon. Members who have spoken against the Bill have already shown that the significance and importance of this Bill transcends its apparently local character.
There has been an amazing omission in this debate and in much of the evidence taken in the other place. Another reason why the Bill is not just a local one is its huge and significant public expenditure consequences, which have not been explained tonight. That is why I reacted so violently when the Minister rose and sat down in 30 seconds flat, simply saying that the Bill would have substantial expenditure consequences for his Department. The House is being asked to pass a carry-over motion on a Bill whose public expenditure consequences have not been explained. I make no criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who has enough to deal with in promoting the Bill and opening the debate on the motion, but except in one sentence, he did not mention public expenditure. As a valleys Member, I have a vested interest in knowing the overall sums, where the money will come from, what proportion will be paid by the ratepayers of south Glamorgan or of the city council and what proportion will come from the national purse—that is, the Welsh Office and its various agencies and bodies.

Mr. Michael: These are matters of considerable detail, and in coming to a conclusion, we should discuss the expenditure and match it with the benefit that will result. However, should not these matters be properly investigated by the Select Committee?

Mr. Rowlands: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the way that my hon. Friend has minimised the argument, by saying that all this can be dealt with in Committee. When public Bills are introduced, their financial implications are spelt out from the start. Attached to the original Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill was a financial memorandum, which contained the first information about expenditure that we were given. It is not attached to the Bills that we have now—it seems to have been taken off. It said:
The Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for the Environment have said in a joint report to Parliament that … it would be the Government's intention that the cost of the barrage as at present estimated would be met by the Development Corporation with the assistance of a grant-in-aid provided by the Welsh Office.
In other words, this will be publicly funded by the Welsh Office. It continued:
The expenditure on construction of the proposed works is estimated at £82,230,000. The expenditure on the acquisition of lands and easements for the works is estimated at £2,550,000.
We know that the initial public expenditure implications of the Bill, according to the financial memorandum, will be about £85 million. However, that is misleading

because in the cross-examination of the promoters of the Bill in the other place, the figures turned out to be very different. There is an admission that a high level of public expenditure in the barrage site is essential to the scheme. The Minister, the promoters and certainly Tory Members, who have strong views about public expenditure, have to justify this level of expenditure. What is the expenditure to be? The cost of the barrage is estimated to be £113 million plus. Presumably, that will be substantially funded by the Welsh Office. Perhaps the Minister will intervene now and tell us what portion of that £113 million will be funded by the Welsh Office, as opposed to the county council or local government.
That is not the end of it. That is only a small proportion of the total public expenditure consequences of the Bill. Again in the evidence presented in the other place, we are told that in addition to the £113 million—not the £85 million in the financial memorandum—there is a land reclamation cost of £15 million. I have an interest in land reclamation schemes because my constituency has, I believe, the largest concentration of derelict industrial land, certainly in Wales and probably in the United Kingdom as a whole. There will also be depollution costs of £60 million and combined road schemes costing another £118 million.
Therefore, the total possible public expenditure consequences of the Bill, about which not one word has been said this evening and not a single figure given by the Minister, are of over £400 million. That is what, in another place, the promoters agreed were the total barrage plus infrastructure costs of the scheme.
The Minister is in dereliction of his duty to the House by not giving that information. Indeed, one principle upon which the parliamentary system was founded was the scrutiny and accountability of public funds. If there was no other case for opposing the carry-over motion, sufficient reason would be that until the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to tell us what proportion of that £400 million-plus will be funded by central Government, as opposed to what might be raised by the ratepayers of South Glamorgan, the Bill should not proceed. It is all very well for local authorities to promote big, important schemes—we have all been party to this and have argued for and promoted them—but if the funds are to come not from local government, but from central Government, interest in the measure must transcend the boundaries of any one local authority. This is a matter of national interest. It is certainly of interest to the Principality to know where that £400 million-plus will come from.
I turn now to a point about which we have heard nothing. Again, I do not in any way blame my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth for this because he had a lot to explain at the beginning of the debate, and in the numerous interventions, cross-references and points of order, he might have overlooked telling the House this other fact. Despite the amazing appendix on the barrage's tremendous economic benefits, in City terms, the evidence that was submitted to the other place on the operating costs of the barrage estimated that the revenue from the barrage—the fees or whatever—will amount to £475 million, whereas the costs of operating the barrage will be £1·1 billion. Even according to the promoters, there will be a net operational loss of £652 million. Who will fund that? Will it be funded by the ratepayers or will the Welsh Office make an on-going contribution?
The Government want to carry over a Bill with capital expenditure consequences of more than £400 million and to include a net £600 million operating cost on top, yet we still do not know what proportion of that will be paid from central Government funds.
We have been told that Parliament has already thoroughly investigated the scheme and that the Bill has come down to us with the blessing of their Lordships. I have looked through the 16 volumes of evidence to try to find the answers to the questions that I have asked and which the Minister has failed to answer about the contribution from central Government funds. The best that one can find in the evidence is an exchange between Mr. Geoffrey Inkin, who I think is the chairman of the corporation, and the cross-examiners. At one point, the chairman of the inquiry asked Mr. Inkin:
Do I understand that £250m will come straight from Government funding and the £150m will come from increased land values?
The answer was:
No, £75m–£125m. Is the sum, to be precise.
Well, £75 million to £125 million is certainly a precise sum. Mr. Inkin's answer continued:
One is talking about a total sum of public funding of something of the order of £300m–£350m. There are additional sources of funding, but relatively minor key.
To the next question of
That makes up the balance between £300m and £350m and the £400m?
Mr. Inkin replied:
Much of the balance of about £75m is in fact to go towards the cost of the peripheral distributor road which comes out of transport supplementary grant to the County Council. We may make a subscription on a proportion.
That is supposed to be the lucid evidence, given under cross-examination, that results in the Bill being given the blessing of their Lordships. As far as I can tell, that was the sum of the evidence covering the public expenditure implications of the Bill.
For no other reason, I beg hon. Members not to agree to the Bill being carried over, certainly not until we are given an effective assessment—a real financial memorandum—showing the true cost of the measure to the public and particularly to the national purse.
Perhaps the most telling argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—at any rate, in his view—was that we must not oppose major developments in view of the effect that our action might have on jobs and the future of the city. When reading the evidence given in this matter—I was in the Private Bill Office—I discovered that the chief counsel for South Glamorgan county council was a long-standing adversary of mine, a wealthy gentleman named Peter Boydell, probably the country's No. 1 planning QC.
The last time I saw Mr. Boydell in action was when he was advocating a grandiose city centre development for Cardiff. I was reminded of all the arguments that we heard, back in the late 1960s, when I was active—hon. Members will agree that I acted effectively—in opposing that grandiose scheme. Almost identical arguments to those now being adduced for the barrage scheme were made on that occasion, including the attempt to blackmail us into believing that more jobs were at stake, that the proposed hook road would solve the urban traffic problems of the

city and that such a development, along with the creation of a huge shopping centre, was the only way for a capital city to develop.
It was to the good fortune of us all that that scheme fell and the hook road was not built. Instead there emerged the sort of development for which we were arguing—the organic development of the city. It has since developed in the way that we hoped. Today, Cardiff city centre is one of the finest of any city. That has happened not as the result of any grandiose scheme but for the reverse reason—because we turned our backs on huge developments and went for the sensible, progressive, organic development of the city.
There is a parallel between the change of attitude on that occasion and the consideration that we are giving to the barrage today. We rejected that grandiose scheme 20 years ago, and that led to the fine city centre that Cardiff now has. By saying no to the carry-over tonight, there will be a rethink of the whole issue, just as occurred 20 years ago. I hope that, following that rethink, there will emerge a consensus for the idea of a mini-barrage, which will overcome many of the objections that have been voiced on conservation grounds and which will not make the sort of demands on public expenditure that the barrage scheme would make.
It has been suggested that we should not make this an argument of valley versus the city of Cardiff. We do not want that to happen, but we are jealous of the relative proportions of public expenditure that is devoted to the city and to valley communities such as mine. The public expenditure consequences of the Bill and the large proportion of money that one suspects will come from Welsh Office funds make the Secretary of State's Valleys initiative look like an extremely meagre affair.
There are many reasons why the Bill should not be carried over, including the wider, broader national issues that have been mentioned. People who 10 years ago would have dismissed arguments about the needs of wading birds have now become aware of the enormous long-term significance of conservation—

Mr. Michael: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 58.

Division No. 407]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alton, David
Butler, Chris


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carttiss, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Bell, Stuart
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coleman, Donald


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Colvin, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Couchman, James


Brazier, Julian
Cox, Tom


Bright, Graham
Crowther, Stan


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Buck, Sir Antony
Curry, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry)






Day, Stephen
Mills, Iain


Dixon, Don
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mitchell, Sir David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Monro, Sir Hector


Duffy, A. E. P.
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Durant, Tony
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eadie, Alexander
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Evennett, David
Murphy, Paul


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Neubert, Michael


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Favell, Tony
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Norris, Steve


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Flynn, Paul
Page, Richard


Fookes, Dame Janet
Paice, James


Forman, Nigel
Parry, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patnick, Irvine


Forth, Eric
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Foster, Derek
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Franks, Cecil
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fraser, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Freeman, Roger
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


French, Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Gale, Roger
Rhodes James, Robert


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Robertson, George


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Rost, Peter


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Gregory, Conal
Sayeed, Jonathan


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Shaw, David (Dover)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Grist, Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ground, Patrick
Shelton, Sir William


Hague, William
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Harris, David
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Haynes, Frank
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Squire, Robin


Home Robertson, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stern, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Stevens, Lewis


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Stokes, Sir John


Irvine, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Strang, Gavin


Kilfedder, James
Summerson, Hugo


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kirkwood, Archy
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Knapman, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Knowles, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Knox, David
Thurnham, Peter


Lang, Ian
Tredinnick, David


Lawrence, Ivan
Trotter, Neville


Lee, John (Pendle)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lightbown, David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wallace, James


Lord, Michael
Waller, Gary


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McFall, John
Warren, Kenneth


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Wheeler, John


Maclean, David
Widdecombe, Ann


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann


McWilliam, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian



Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Mr. Gwilym Jones and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Michael, Alun






NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Loyden, Eddie


Barron, Kevin
McCartney, Ian


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McWilliam, John


Buckley, George J.
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Caborn, Richard
Martlew, Eric


Clay, Bob
Meale, Alan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Corbett, Robin
Morley, Elliot


Corbyn, Jeremy
Patchett, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Redmond, Martin


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Richardson, Jo


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Rogers, Allan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Fatchett, Derek
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Rowlands, Ted


Flannery, Martin
Short, Clare


Fyfe, Maria
Skinner, Dennis


Galloway, George
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hinchliffe, David
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Hood, Jimmy
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Illsley, Eric
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lamond, James



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Litherland, Robert
Dr. Kim Howells and Mr. Win Griffiths.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 48.

Division No. 408]
[10.12 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alton, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Eadie, Alexander


Ashby, David
Evennett, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bermingham, Gerald
Favell, Tony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boswell, Tim
Flynn, Paul


Bowis, John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Boyes, Roland
Forman, Nigel


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Foster, Derek


Brazier, Julian
Franks, Cecil


Bright, Graham
Fraser, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Freeman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
French, Douglas


Budgen, Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Chris
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chapman, Sydney
Gregory, Conal


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Coleman, Donald
Grist, Ian


Colvin, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Conway, Derek
Hague, William


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Corbett, Robin
Harris, David


Couchman, James
Haynes, Frank


Cox, Tom
Home Robertson, John


Crowther, Stan
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Curry, David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Day, Stephen
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dixon, Don
Irvine, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)






Kilfedder, James
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kirkwood, Archy
Robertson, George


Knapman, Roger
Rost, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shelton, Sir William


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Lord, Michael
Snape, Peter


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McFall, John
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Steel, Rt Hon David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stevens, Lewis


McWilliam, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stokes, Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mates, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Maude, Hon Francis
Summerson, Hugo


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Meale, Alan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Michael, Alun
Thorne, Neil


Mills, Iain
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Trotter, Neville


Monro, Sir Hector
Twinn, Dr Ian


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wallace, James


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Waller, Gary


Murphy, Paul
Ward, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Widdecombe, Ann


Norris, Steve
Wilkinson, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas


Paice, James
Wood, Timothy


Parry, Robert
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Patchett, Terry



Patnick, Irvine
Tellers for the Ayes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Gwilym Jones and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Bob


Buckley, George J.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Caborn, Richard
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Clay, Bob
Fatchett, Derek


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Faulds, Andrew


Corbyn, Jeremy
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)





Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Jo


Hinchliffe, David
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowlands, Ted


Illsley, Eric
Sedgemore, Brian


Lamond, James
Short, Clare


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Martlew, Eric
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morley, Elliot



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Primarolo, Dawn
Dr. Kim Howells and Mr. Win Griffiths.


Redmond, Martin

Question agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;

Ordered,
That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Orders of the Day — Medical and Pharmaceutical Services (Scotland)

Mr. Bob Cryer:: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a note on the Order Paper that
The Instrument has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
That is no longer accurate. It was considered by the Committee this afternoon. We did not have time further to examine the instrument, but the Committee does not wish to draw the attention of the House to any defect in it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that clear.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 1990), dated 31st October 1989, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st November, be annulled.
I want to draw the attention of the House to a large number of defects in the regulations. I intend to do so briskly because there is just over an hour in which to debate them, and many of my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate.
We have some fundamental objections to the regulations. I make no apology for having prayed against them and I make no apology either, for inviting my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against them. Our first and very obvious objection, with which the Minister will be familiar, is that the GPs' contract is being imposed despite the overwhelming opposition of the vast majority of doctors in Scotland. Their dislike of and objections to the contract are shared by the public and are certainly supported by the Opposition.
I want to make it clear that not every proposed change is offensive or unacceptable in itself. For example there are provisions to give individual patients more information about practices and to give them the ability to move from list to list, there is an incentive for doctors to undertake their own night calls and there are a number of other matters with which there is no great quarrel and which will have a fair degree of support. But that is not the essence of the matter.
The imposition of the contract has been necessary because it represents a substantial switch in general paractitioners' incomes to capitation fees. There is no doubt that there has been a marked switch of emphasis. I understand that it is intended that capitation fees should rise from about 45 or 46 per cent. of the income of a practice to about 60 per cent. We fear that the effect will be that fewer doctors will see more patients and that that will build in an incentive to increase patient numbers and cut the time that a doctor spends with each patient. That has been considered over a lengthy period and there has been a spirited public debate. In the parallel debate on the English instruments, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) drew attention to the findings of the Select Committee on Social Services in 1987 which recorded:

the proposal to increase the proportion of a general practitioner's income derived from capitation was universally opposed.
Since then, the opposition has become even more marked, more vociferous and more strongly based on public opinion.
As the Minister will no doubt concede, the proposals before us represent the reversal of a change in policy that took place in the 1960s. Until then GPs' remuneration was based almost entirely on capitation fees. That became unpopular and was widely considered as an unsatisfactory system. In 1964, or around that time, under the then Labour Government, there was a major renegotiation which produced a hybrid system. Capitation fees remained important, but there was a substantial switch to fees and allowances. At the same time the Government guaranteed two thirds of the cost of practice workers and a number of other matters.
That essential shift in the balance between capitation and other forms of income, was negotiated on the basis of experience and consensus with the medical profession and with those who were interested in the future of primary medicine under the Health Service. We are now seeing an about-turn. We are being asked to move backwards at the command of the new Right and if we do that it will be to the detriment of the service and the disadvantage of the patient.
No doubt the Minister will argue that there are safeguards in the new Scottish contract, and perhaps he will say a word or two about them. He may point to the operation of the Scottish rural practice fund which is well established and well understood and has been a well-targeted project based largely on a capitation element for smaller practices. Of course there will have to be an increase in the Scottish rural practice fund. I am particularly interested in how that will be paid and whether it will be indexed to keep pace with the cost of living or will take account of the substantial shift towards capitation fees in general practitioners' remuneration. Clearly, if the capitation fee becomes more important and increases as a proportion of the total, small practices are likely to suffer as it grows. If they are to get anything like satisfactory protection, it is essential that we receive assurances from the Minister that the rural practice fund will increase more than simply by the cost of living to take account of that. If our protestations are to carry any credibility, it would be very helpful if the Minister were specific on that point.
The deprivation allowance is a new payment introduced by the contract. It is referred to in paragraph 12 of the contract as an amendment to regulation 31. We know that deprivation is a problem in Scottish society. I draw the House's attention—I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with it—to an article that appeared in the 7 October issue of the British Medical Journal. The authors of the article, Vera Carstairs and Russell Morris, set out the stark facts of deprivation in Scotland and the marked connection between those facts and mortality rates. The comparison between the percentage value of components of deprivation in Scotland and those in England and Wales is harsh. Male unemployment is 12·7 per cent. in Scotland but 8·7 per cent. in England and Wales. The figure for housing overcrowding is 25·3 per cent. in Scotland but 5·8 per cent. in England and Wales.


Among the social indicators, 41·2 per cent. of the population in Scotland have no car, whereas the figure for England and Wales is 24·4 per cent.
The article says that 24 per cent. of the population of England and Wales live in what are described as affluent conditions—category 1 conditions—whereas the same category embraces only 6 per cent. of the population of Scotland. That is a worrying factor and is perhaps a reproach to us all, but it is directly reflected in the workload of general practitioners and in the Scottish mortality rates. It is depressing to discover that mortality rates in Scotland are 16 or 17 per cent., depending on gender, above those in England and Wales. That is a startling fact.
The Minister may say, "So what?" There may be a tendency to shrug that off, or we may be told that it will be cured by a good dose of the enterprise culture blown away by the healthy enema of Thatcherism, but none of us believes that for a moment.
The impact of deprivation on GPs' work loads is well documented. Research shows that male patients in Scotland aged 65 to 74 have six consultations per annum, whereas in England and Wales it is only five. The figure for females is seven in Scotland and five in England and Wales. Perhaps that difference is marginal, but if it is aggregrated across the caseload of a busy practice or across a community it represents a substantial distinction and underlines the potential importance of the deprivation premium. It futher underlines the importance of how funds will be allocated once they are being paid. That is the second point that I ask the Minister to consider and say a little about.
I understand that over the years the Scottish Office has established acceptable methods of calculating deprivation factors in individual practices. I should like to know what the allocation to Scotland will be for the deprivation allowance. If it is to be paid on a population ratio, we should expect about 9 or 10 per cent., but clearly that would be a mockery given the facts to which I have referred and the overwhelming rate of deprivation in rural and industrial Scotland. I am told that the Jarman index suggests that a fair apportionment of the national total for Scotland would be between 15 and 20 per cent.
A decision must be made, in principle at least, between the Scottish Office and the Department of Health. I hope that the Minister will say that the allocation will be based on the incidence of deprivation and not on a more arithmetical calculation that depends on population ratios. I know that the Minister will be in a position to help us, and I very much hope that he will do so.
I shall confine the rest of my remarks to list sizes because I am aware that I must discipline my comments if other hon. Members are to speak. It would be a tragedy if the considerable advantage which is enjoyed in the Health Service in Scotland were eroded. The average practice list in Scotland is about 1,650 patients. In England, it is marginally under 2,000. There is a significant gap between the two—one gap that I do not want to see closed.
The Under-Secretary seems determined to close that gap. That is the clear implication of his policy. The regulations are offensive because they impose a contract against the wishes of the majority of Scottish doctors and introduce changes which are not in the best interests of

patients. They make Scottish GPs more dependent on a simple head count. They build in a financial incentive to increase list sizes. They mean fewer doctors treating more patients.
The Opposition's interest is the future of the Health Service. Efficient general practice is the necessary foundation for the specialist services that often make the headlines. I fear that the regulations are another illustration of the Government's so-called business approach to patient care taking second place to accountancy practice. For that reason, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I am astonished at the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is normally more assiduous in doing his homework on these matters. He said that he had taken a lot of advice. I shall give him one piece of advice. It is certainly correct to say that GPs in Scotland enjoy smaller list sizes than doctors south of the border. One reason is the fact that, since 1979, under the Government, the number of GPs in Scotland has been increased by 14·9 per cent. The number of women doctors has been increased by about 60 per cent. Under the Conservative Government, average list sizes have fallen from 1,856 to 1,605. If we enjoy the benefits of smaller list sizes, it is because the Government have provided more doctors.

Mr. Dewar: List sizes have always been small.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that they have always been small. In 1979, the average list size was 1,856.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: In 1988, it was 1,605 because of the increase in the number of doctors that we provided.

Mrs. Fyfe: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister appears not to be giving way.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Garscadden should take account of that fact. He has asked whether this will continue. The answer is yes. We will continue to increase the number of general practitioners. How can the hon. Gentleman argue that average list sizes will have to increase when he knows that the Government are committed to increasing the number of GPs and to increasing expenditure on these primary care services while the population remains broadly static? Elementary mathematics would enable anyone to determine that, in those circumstances, average list sizes cannot increase. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now withdraw his accusation.

Mr. Dewar: No.

Mr. Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is possible to increase the number of GPs—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I am addressing my remarks, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Front-Bench spokesman—the hon. Member for Garscadden—who said that


average list sizes will have to increase. If we are going to increase the number of GPs and the population remains broadly static—everyone agrees that it will—how is it possible to argue that average list sizes will increase?

Mr. Dewar: I am fascinated by the Minister's comments. Obviously, we will see what happens over the next year or two. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that no incentive is being built into the scheme to increase list sizes, he is the only person in Scotland who thinks so. He is used to being the only person in Scotland who thinks certain things. We have had to put up with that for a long time. Even the Secretary of State does not usually think the same things as the hon. Gentleman. The truth is that that incentive is being built in. If there is not the increase in list sizes that we predict, we will be in the odd position that the Minister's plans clearly have not worked as he intends.

Mr. Forsyth: On the contrary. The hon. Gentleman has changed his ground. He started off by arguing that the average list size would increase. The Hansard account will show that. He is now arguing that there will be an incentive for doctors to attract patients. That is entirely different from arguing that the average list size will increase. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the average list size will increase if the number of doctors will increase. The Government have increased the number of GPs in Scotland every year by about 100 and we plan to continue to do so.
The hon. Gentleman said that we shall see what happens in a few years. I take that as a tacit admission that his assertion about the average list is incorrect.

Mr. Robert Hughes: During the summer, I had occasion to visit a GP in Aberdeen as a result of a minor dietary indiscretion. He told me that the principal in the practice had retired, and that if he had known the Minister's plans, he would not have replaced the principal but carried on with fewer doctors. That is how list sizes will rise. Doctors will not be replaced. The Minister's fond claims that the number of GPs will increase will be found to be a gross overstatement.

Mr. Forsyth: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but his constituent was making the same mistake as the hon. Member for Garscadden. He is making a judgment, but no hon. Member, me included, and no doctor, knows what the result of the new contract will be for incomes. The contract will be priced not by the Government but by the doctors and dentists review body on the basis of evidence that the Government will give to it.
We have made it perfectly clear that the purpose of the contract is to encourage doctors to extend their range of services, and to ensure that those who provide screening and meet their targets, who encourage their patients to come for check-ups and who provide additional services such as day surgery will be rewarded for doing so. I do not know what kind of service the constituent of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) provides, but many GPs in Scotland provide exactly the type of service that we want to encourage. They are the doctors who turn out in the middle of the night. The hon. Member for Garscadden was kind enough to acknowledge that there are many attractive aspects of the contract. There are doctors who are available at weekends and those who provide day surgery services. They are not sufficiently

rewarded for providing such extra services, and the contract will enable them to benefit in a way that has not been possible in the past.

Mr. Allan Stewart: How many hours per week does the average Scottish general practitioner work?

Mr. Forsyth: There is no such thing as an average general practitioner, but some figures have been done as a result of the work study. If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall come to them later in my speech.

Mr. William McKelvey: There are average budgets.

Mr. Forsyth: There are indeed average list sizes and budgets. I said that there is no such thing as an average GP. Each GP provides a range of services that are considered appropriate to his or her patients. The contract will reward most those doctors who do most for their patients, and encourage patients to choose their doctors.
The hon. Member for Garscadden was good enough to say that the retention of the Scottish rural practices fund will make a difference to doctors in Scotland. I think that I am entitled to observe that the contract was negotiated on a United Kingdom basis—Scottish doctors were not prepared to negotiate on a Scottish basis—and my right hon. and learned Friend was able to get the contract amended to reflect Scottish circumstances, including a reduction in list sizes required to qualify for basic practice allowance and changes, which are unique to Scotland, to reflect the position in rural and deprived areas. The pricing of the Scottish rural practice fund is a matter on which we shall be giving evidence to the doctors and dentists review body.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: That has nothing to do with the Minister.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it has nothing to do with me. I should have thought that he would have been reassured rather than alarmed by that. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that such a body will price the contract and look at the position. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would also give some credit to Ministers for having secured that. He wrote to me about the matter and has been prepared to discuss it in correspondence.
The hon. Member for Garscadden and I can perhaps agree to acknowledge the importance of the Scottish rural practice fund. I hope that he acknowledges that it will help doctors in rural areas. What will, of course, eventually matter is the weighting that is applied and the sums of money involved—if one is concerned with incomes rather than patient care.

Mr. Dewar: It is pleasant to have the Minister being so pleasant to me, although it is also rather worrying. He has said that he will give evidence so he must know what his Department is pressing for in this matter. Will he confirm that the evidence will be made public? What advice does he think that he will be offering to the pay review body on this matter?

Mr. Forsyth: It is amazing how, in the past, our evidence to review bodies has become public, whether on a voluntary or involuntary basis. On the principle at stake, both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have said repeatedly that the purpose of the


contract is to ensure that doctors who provide the services that we wish to encourage benefit from it and that doctors who work in rural areas, perhaps with smaller list sizes, should not suffer. Our evidence to the review body in respect of doctors in rural areas and doctors in deprived areas will reflect that.
The hon. Member for Garscadden also asked me about the position—

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister does not know.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North may say that I do not know, but in fact we shall say that we wish to secure a contract which ensures that doctors who are providing those services benefit as they have not done in the past. The hon. Member for Garscadden has doctors in his constituency who do that and he should be pleased that they will be in that position.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me about deprived areas and, rightly, pointed out that there were substantial areas of deprivation in Scotland, and problems of poor housing—many of them exacerbated by municipal Socialism, I might add. He says that there are problems that have an impact on the work load of GPs, and that is true. The capitation will be weighted to take account of that.
The hon. Member for Garscadden also pressed me on how that will be done. It will be done on the basis of Jarman indices and we are currently discussing with the Scottish General Medical Services Council the most appropriate way to achieve that. As with the genesis of the contract, I want very much to proceed on the basis that in Scotland we take the advice and help that are available to us from the SGMSC. We do not always come to the conclusions that it would like, but we are entitled to say that the so-called "tartan contract" went a long way towards meeting its needs.

Mr. Dewar: I appreciate that the Minister is being helpful and has given an interesting response. I do not want to pin him down to specific figures because that would be unfair when negotiations are in train. Would it be fair to say that the Jarman indices suggest a figure of between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the total coming to Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman begs the question. He has no doubt studied these matters carefully so he will know that the key question is whether one goes for a figure of 20 per cent., 30 per cent. or 40 per cent.—I had better say a number of figures so that people do not latch on to a particular one—of the Jarman indices to define the level of deprivation. That is one point that is being considered at present. The other matters on which we need to be satisfied is that those indices will operate effectively within Scotland, and we are moving towards that.
I would be happy to consider establishing a committee drawn from various interests, as we have done successfully with the rural practice fund, to consider the implementation of this matter. I hope that I have answered as well as I could all the points made by the hon. Member for Garscadden.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) asked me the average number of hours worked by GPs in Scotland. The figure from the 1985–86 work load survey

showed that 38 hours per week were worked—[Interruption.] Opposition Members seem surprised, but that is the figure and there has been no disagreement about it.
The contract will ensure that services are more responsive to consumers' needs and that we raise standards of care, promote health and prevent illness, give patients the widest range of choice in obtaining high-quality primary care services, enable clearer priorities to be set for the family practitioner services in relation to the rest of the NHS and reward those doctors who do most for their patients by providing the good-quality services that we all want.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is it not the case that the new idea of paying a certain amount according to the percentage of immunisation and cervical cytology may penalise the doctor working in a difficult area who tries extremely hard to persuade people to come forward for immunisation or cervical cytology? I am thinking particularly of inner-city areas where there is a high mobility within the population and doctors have great difficulty reaching the 50 per cent. mark that has been set, particularly for cervical cytology.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady refers to a difficulty that we identified in our discussions in Scotland—which is why we opened up the possibility of the staging of target payments. I opened a health centre in Pollok, Glasgow—the sort of area the hon. Lady is thinking of—which had achieved immunisation targets in excess of 98 per cent. It had done so because it had made that goal a priority. I do not doubt that it is much harder to achieve success in some areas than in others. However, as I have just explained, in those areas where it is harder, because of the weighting on capitation to reflect deprivation, doctors will receive remuneration in addition to that which they would receive as a result of achieving their targets.
The hon. Lady will also know that there have been anxieties about achieving the targets for cervical cytology because of, for example, patients who may have had hysterectomies. But allowance has been made for them.
At the margin we can demonstrate that the Government have taken a flexible view, but it cannot be wrong to set as targets for Scotland—as we have done for immunization—World Health Organisation targets which have been set for developing countries. It must be right and in the interests of overall health care that those targets are achieved in Scotland.
The remuneration of GPs in Scotland has increased dramatically under this Government. The average total remuneration went up by 37·2 per cent. ahead of inflation to £67,066. The net remuneration—perhaps the best figure to consider—is up by 22·3 per cent. ahead of inflation to £31,105. In Scotland, the number of doctors has risen since 1979 by 15 per cent. and the number of women unrestricted principals by 61 per cent., with average list sizes dropping. Our existing plans for expenditure of £525 million in the current year, rising to £560 million in 1990–91, and £610 million in 1991–92, stand. No doubt a further announcement will be made as part of the 1989 public expenditure survey.
The contract is the logical outcome of our decision to promote better health. I commend the regulations to the House and ask for their endorsement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. At this reasonably early stage, I should let hon. Members know that there is a lot of interest in this debate. I appeal for short speeches so that I can call most of the hon. Members who wish to take part.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: As late as 6 o'clock this evening, I got in touch with the local general practitioner in Springburn, Dr. Henry Bruce, and he told me that he does not know a GP who wants the Minister's contracts. That should he put on the record. Dr. Bruce also told me that, although these contracts are to be implemented in April, not a doctor in Scotland knows what remuneration he will get. The Minister tells us that there will be more doctors. Why is it that, in the Springburn-Possilpark area, health boards have refused to replace three doctors who have retired? That is not consistent with what the Minister is saying.
The Minister keeps talking about practice budgets.

Mr. Allan Stewart: He did not mention them.

Mr. Martin: He may not have mentioned them tonight, but the hon. Gentleman knows that the Minister has often, in correspondence with doctors in my constituency, quoted the cash budget. The Minister knows that only 6 per cent. of the practices in my constituency will benefit from this budget, because only 6 per cent. have 11,000 patients. That is the type of GP service that the Minister wants—big practices with nine doctors. That is not consistent with the personal care he talks about. He wants practices that have been in the city of Glasgow for generation after generation, passed down from father to son and now from father to daughter, to disappear, to be replaced by these big practices.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) spoke of smear tests. For one in every 10 smears taken, a fee is granted, and that fee can cover the other nine tests. Under the new proposals, it is unlikely that doctors will get a payment.
What is the Minister talking about when he speaks of special clinics? We are talking about general practitioners who are prepared to give a comprehensive service, so that, if a patient comes in complaining of a headache and high blood pressure, that will be attended to. The Minister wants the GP to become involved in an exclusive service, with the result that one practice will specialise in high blood pressure, and others in other illnesses. That could cause patients to leave the practice that they have been going to for many years.
The Minister knows that there have been cases in Glasgow, and other urban areas, of drug addicts calling doctors out on bogus calls and ambushing them. Some have been seriously assaulted. This happened to a Doctor Turner in Springburn. With all its faults, at least the deputising service means that in these areas, a deputising doctor can turn up with a driver, who can have the engine running so that, if there are any difficulties, they can get out quick. That is an unfortunate aspect of the society in which we live, but we have to be realistic.
It is insulting that the Minister is prepared to offer a GP three times the amount of money to go to one of his patients that a deputising doctor will get. I do not see the logic in that. I should like to see my doctor fresh from his

surgery in the morning, and if I needed a doctor in the middle of the night, I would prefer to get a deputising doctor for that reason. The Minister knows that safety factors must be looked into in the different areas of Glasgow.
I finish by referring briefly to the deprivation allowance, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am mindful of your earlier remarks. How will the Minister draw boundaries in any city in Scotland? In some of the most deprived areas of Glasgow, there are also the most beautiful streets where well-off people live, and the reverse is also true—there are well-off areas with streets that have serious social problems. How is the Minister going to set about allocating a deprivation allowance in such a situation?

Sir Hector Monro: I am glad that we are reaching a conclusion tonight in considering these contracts because it is the end of a sad story of misinformation and misunderstanding. I know that in my constituency patients have been left in the fear that they might have a reduced medical service. That is quite incorrect. They believed, too, that general practitioners could not prescribe the required drugs; that general practitioners might send patients to hospitals far from home; and that the number of general practitioners would decrease. However, my hon. Friend the Minister has proved tonight that that is certainly not true.
I am not surprised that, on account of all this misinformation, there was a flood of letters to many hon. Members. Patients were reacting to leaflets published by the British Medical Association and to advertisements in their local papers, which left a great deal to be desired.
General practitioners have an important role to play in the National Health Service. I wish to pay a tribute to family doctors and their staffs for the hard work that they put in, often in inclement weather in the winter. Their work is of a high standard. The new National Health Service reforms and these doctors' contracts will make it an even better service.
There will be more doctors—it is quite wrong for the Opposition to imply that that is not the case, because we know that the number of doctors has increased enormously under the present Government, as has the number of nurses, dentists and other specialists.
It is right that that excellent service should be rewarded. As has been said, pay is fixed by the doctors and dentists review body. My hon. Friend the Minister stated that the average gross remuneration is about £67,000, which is 37 per cent. up in real terms since 1979. We know that there are heavy costs in any practice and that the target income or the net average return is certainly considerably less. I understand that it is about £31,000, with huge variations depending on the capitation fees. In any event, the increase in salary is certainly about 22 per cent. in real terms.
As my hon. Friend stated, in Scotland we also take into account the rural practice fund—and all credit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for negotiating that so satisfactorily in the spring. There is also an allowance for general practitioners who work single-handed in isolated areas.
Thus, the contracts have many benefits for general practitioners. In the future, doctors will be paid for minor surgery, for child health surveillance and for health promotion clinics—all very good things. They will have


financial incentives to maximise childhood immunisations and, of course, screening for cancer, to which we all attach great importance.
The system of target payments has already been mentioned. I think that it is perfectly fair that we set a high target of 70 to 90 per cent. for children and 50 to 80 per cent. for women. Those are the World Health Organisation's targets and I believe that in a country that has prided itself for years on its medical care, we should set our targets as high as possible. There will be a post-graduate education allowance, we have discussed the deprivation supplement and there will be more money for the capitation fee.
In view of the criticisms that were expressed in the early spring and summer, it is important to note the benefits for women doctors. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the numbers of women doctors were up by 60 per cent. The new part-time arrangements will enable women doctors to contract to work half time or three-quarters time, and we can look forward to having many more part-time women doctors employed in practices in Scotland.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that women doctors want to work part time on such contracts? Has he not noticed the views of women doctors who are bitterly opposed to the new contract?

Sir Hector Monro: That does not add to the debate—[Interruption.] We have 60 per cent. more women doctors and they are being given opportunities to work on a part-time basis. I should have thought that women doctors would appreciate that. As the Minister said, we are also giving higher rates for personal night visits and for the encouragement of students.
There has been a great deal of misinformation about the practice budget. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) pointed out that it was voluntary for practices of 11,000 or more patients. The important point is that it is voluntary, so that nobody need feel that that form of auditing must be undertaken.
The misinformation about prescribing has been extremely annoying. It was suggested that doctors would run out of money and would not be able to prescribe what they felt was clinically essential. They will not run out of money. They will be able to prescribe whatever they consider to be necessary up to £5,000, after which they will seek authority from the area health board, which I am sure will be forthcoming. It was wrong for patients to be given the impression that doctors might run out of money and be unable to prescribe what they required.
Under the new arrangements, there will be many advantages for patients. Doctors will be available at times which suit them and it will be easier to change doctors if necessary, although I hope that that will not often be so. Elderly patients will be entitled to regular checks from 75 years of age, there will be more immunisation and preventive medicine and local facilities will be much better advertised—[Interruption.] It is surprising that Opposition Members are not taking this matter seriously. This debate is concerned with the health of the people of Scotland. The Government's proposals will do much to raise the standard of health care in Scotland and will provide more chiropodists, physiotherapists and other specialists.
All in all, this will prove to be a good contract for doctors and patients. Doctors should be better off if they provide a better service. We should encourage them to accept the contract with more enthusiasm than they have shown—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Garscadden finds this amusing. The health budget for Scotland this year stands at £2,797 million, far more than ever before, and I am confident that it will be increased when we hear tomorrow about public expenditure. We can expect a better health service than we have enjoyed before, and certainly better than we ever had when Labour Members were in power.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is deeply unfortunate that we are required to debate the regulations in such a short time. I am not criticising anyone for speaking for too long, but these are extremely important matters. I am sure that there is real frustration on both sides of the Chamber that there is so little time available to us.
I accept that there are benefits under the new contract. Anyone who did not recognise that would be daft. I accept also that there is a need for change. Since 1966, when the previous substantial reform took place, many things have changed. It is proper that the Government should consider afresh the position that now obtains.
I do not attribute any direct link to Scottish Office Ministers, but Ministers have behaved scandalously nationally in introducing imputations and insinuations against general practitioners. They have sought to advance an argument on the basis of doctors' pay, and that is wrong. The GPs to whom I have spoken are more concerned about the provision of patient care than the provision of their income.
Some profoundly damaging consequences could flow from the changes that are being introduced if some of the worst fears that are being bruited by GPs and their representatives in Scotland come to pass. The new regulations could dramatically increase practice income. I listened with care to what the Minister said about more money being spent and more money being provided. I understand the difficulty about average lists, for example, and I agree with him that the decrease in the length of waiting lists and the increase in the number of doctors are welcome. My constituency, which is in the borders, has benefited from both trends since 1966.
However, that is not an argument that the Minister should adduce in favour of the Government and their regulations. After all, Governments of both complexions have moved in those directions. The average list in the borders is 1,450; the Scottish average is 1,650. The percentage of income that is generated by the capitation fee is about 29 per cent., which becomes about 55 per cent. of future income. I do not see how doctors' incomes can do anything other than plummet. The Minister says that that the Government will pay for more doctors, for example, but doctors cannot obtain more patients in the Monynut valley, the Ettrick valley or in other rural practices. No matter how good, persuasive or outward-going a GP might be in an area such as my constituency, and no matter how he responds to the Government's blandishments to improve his performance, he will not get more skulls to


treat. That is an unfortunate phrase. I would prefer to say that the individual GP will be unable to find more patients on which to lavish his loving and tender primary care.
How will the Minister's formula work in a constituency such as mine? How will it work in other rural areas? The hon. Gentleman suggested that the rural practice fund and inducement practice payments will bridge the gap, and it was on that issue that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked a fundamental question. The money put into the rural practice fund must increase, or the fund will diminish, there will be early retirements and women doctors will move on, as they are sometimes obliged to do because they get married and they move with their families. The net result must be a reduction in the number of doctors who are available. I have studied these matters as carefully as most, and I am expressing the views of GPs. The Minister shakes his head, and I trust that when he replies to the debate he will explain where I am wrong.
The importance of the deprivation index should be underlined. A Scottish weighting is essential if we are to make sense of the provision for the central industrial belt. Another issue, perhaps at a more subsidiary level, is the fear that the GPASS software that has been developed in Scotland and is serving extremely well, will not measure up to the new requirements of information technology throughout the United Kingdom. It would be a retrograde step if GPASS were to be thrown out with the bathwater in the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance on that when he replies.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I hope that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will forgive me if I do not follow his points because of the shortage of time.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that a large number of his hon. Friends wanted to speak in the debate, roared on by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey)—the only two Opposition Members present at the time.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for responding to my question and providing a number of important statistics. Of course the quantity of services provided by GPs varies; there is no reason why it should not. The trend of Government thinking rightly aims at providing incentives to improved services. That is common ground in the House.
There is much to be commended in the new contract—the increasing availability of doctors, the fact that it will be easier to change doctors, the check-ups for elderly patients, and so on. It must be right that there will be financial incentives to doctors to maximise childhood immunisation and screening for cancer of the cervix. It is also right that GPs working in deprived areas should receive a deprivation supplement, about whose calculation the hon. Member for Garscadden asked a number of questions.
My first question is perhaps a minor one. The age targets are different in England and Wales and in Scotland. The age range quoted in the English contract is 25 to 64, but the age range in Scotland is 20 to 60, and I am not sure why. Can my hon. Friend explain that?
Secondly, doctors in my constituency have expressed their concern about the difficulties of meeting targets for cervical cytology in some areas, not because these areas are deprived but because of large ethnic minorities who might not be prepared, for religious, social and historical reasons, to come forward for such screening.
Thirdly, the success of screening programmes such as those for cervical and breast cancer depend strongly on working from an adequate database. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the database is good enough?
The Labour party is absurdly hypocritical to criticise the Government's record on women doctors. Certainly, many of them want to work part-time, but there are 60 per cent. more women doctors in Scotland now than there were under the last Labour Government.

Mr. William McKelvey: We and the people of Scotland revere most doctors as caring and sympathetic people who are motivated not by profit but by job satisfaction. The Secretary of State for Health thinks that they are motivated by profit; or perhaps he thinks that they are as thick as he believes the rest of the Scots are.
As eight out of 10 GPs have rejected the new contract, it must be fundamentally wrong, despite assurances to the contrary from the Minister this evening.
The Minister has already agreed that the issue of cervical cytology is difficult for the Government to explain. My information is that GPs are paid, per item of service, for cervical smears done once every five years on women between the ages of 36 and 60. They receive no payment for most of the smears that are done now. Even with active screening campaigns, few practices in inner cities and in areas such as Kilmarnock, in which there are no ethnic minorities, ever achieve a take-up rate of more than 50 per cent.
The proposed changes rely on target figures being reached, and if less than 50 per cent. of the target figure is reached, no payment will be made, making it completely impractical for many practices to do any smears. That is the great danger that we want to point out on behalf of the GPs who write to us.
Again, that will affect the poorer areas, not the ethnic minority areas, where the uptake rate is always much lower, not because the women form an ethnic minority but because many of them do not have time for a smear because they have so much trouble worrying about how they will meet the next poll tax bill and look after their children with no increase in the family allowance.
The low uptake rate is not just a Scottish phenomenon: it is the same in poorer English areas. For example, a recently published survey by Wendy Savage, consultant gynaecologist at the London hospital, showed that only one in 10 women surveyed in the Tower Hamlets area of London fully understood that the purpose of the smear test was to identify pre-cancerous cell changes for the purpose of eliminating them. Worse still, seven out of 10 women believed that the smear test would detect fully developed cancer and did not present themselves for testing because they believed that it would only confirm their worst fears, not save their lives. That situation is mirrored in the poorer areas of Scotland.
The imposition of such targets will not only not tackle the scandal of more than 2,000 completely preventable


deaths from cervical cancer every year in the United Kingdom, but is likely to lead to an increase, and that is something that the Minister will have on his conscience. Scotland, with its many poor areas, is likely to bear a disproportionately high percentage of the 2,000 deaths. Since figures are not readily available, I hope that the Minister will collect them to show whether Scotland is affected disproportionately.
The situation will be made worse. A GP is meant to achieve 60 per cent. of a given target in order to receive payment. Does the Minister have any idea how difficult that will be to achieve in an area which could not possibly be described as poor or ill-informed, let alone the areas that have previously been described as poverty-stricken?
In one part of my constituency, Darvel, not a poor area, where local GPs decided on a highly intensive campaign to persuade 173 women to have a cervical smear test, despite a real blitz, only 110 attended for testing. If I am not mistaken, that is the bare minimum of 60 per cent. required before payment is made, and that is in an area of many well-informed—dare I say, middle-class—people.
I hope that that example amply shows that targets will not mean great preventive health care, but less and less, particularly in areas of medicine in which the risk of death should have been eliminated long ago.
There are areas that might benefit from the Minister's plans, but they will be the well-informed, middle-class areas and I am really concerned about the extremely poor people who are least likely to be served by such an ideology.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: My hon. Friend the Minister should consider the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on whether the cytology figures can be achieved. That is an important point which requires study.
The Opposition are clearly in a difficulty tonight. First, they have to admit that Scotland has an infinitely better Health Service, and an infinitely better share of medical expenditure per capita, than in England. They cannot tell us that in England there are not deprived areas, and so on.
What is the justification for our having such an enormous benefit that others do not have. Why are the Opposition and the medical profession so ambitiously resistant to any improvement for patients in Scotland and in the Health Service? The variety of services available, whether in rural practice, hospitals or urban practice is vast. What we want to see is encouragement so that the patient is given a better service everywhere. I find it profoundly depressing that the medical profession has consistently set its face against the possibility of improvement. I fear that there may be times when its members feel that the good of the patients is not as important as that of the doctors.
As we move towards spending money more effectively and improving medical services, I find it extraordinary that the Opposition should object to our proposals to try to restrict the amount spent on drugs. When did they suddenly become the promoters of the international drug companies that are ripping off patients—for that, effectively, is what they are doing? When did the Opposition suddenly decide that they wanted such

companies to make bigger profits at the expense of patients? I should have expected them to say, "Hurrah for the contract: thank goodness, the patients will benefit and the international drug companies will not."
That is just one of the hypocrisies of the Opposition. The Minister has proposed a contract that would give vast benefits to patients. We in Scotland should be far more concerned about them than about those who ought to be proud to serve them—those who have taken the Hippocratic oath, and should abide by it.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) should. I think, have the modesty to read some of the articles that define the problems of the Scottish health service. I recommend the article in volume 299 of the British Medical Journalof 7 October this year, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). It was written by Vera Carstairs and Russell Morris, and based on research funded by the chief scientist of the Scottish Home and Health Department.
If that does not convince the hon. and learned Gentleman of the need for improvement in the Health Service in Scotland, perhaps he would like to read the report by the alternative Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and to note the references made in it to Glenn and Hulbert. He can have it for the reduced rate of £1 per copy; I think that he will find it useful bedtime reading.
Many GPs and others interested in the Health Service will find it difficult to believe the Minister's assertion that GPs work only 38 hours per week. I find it amazing that he can say such a thing as though there were no possibility of contradiction: indeed, he himself was contradicting all the evidence from GPs. I understand that they work an average of 73 hours per week, of which 30 are spent providing general medical services; in addition, they are on call and have other health-related responsibilities.
Let me deal next with the vexed question of list sizes, and the role of women GPs—as a female Member of Parliament from Scotland, I should like to say something about how the legislation is likely to affect them. The new predictions for list sizes show a move away from allowances. Practices have always been attracted by the idea of employing a woman GP as a partner on a 20-hour-per-week basis, because she will put various allowances into the kitty. Generally, though not always, those women have been involved in obstetric, gynaecological and antenatal practice, and have played a fundamental role. As a result of the contract, they seem to be faced with alternatives: increasing their hours of work to 26 per week or taking on a new contract. Both will have deleterious effects on their family life. Women GPs often work only 20 hours a week because of their family commitments, but they bring that particular facility to the practice.
The Minister was right to refer to the large increase in the number of women GPs working in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We welcome that increase, but I must point out to him and to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that the new contract could reverse a trend that is attracting women GPs into general practice. The Government argue strongly in favour of people being given a choice, but they could restrict their choice because many patients wish to have a woman doctor.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &amp;c. (negative procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 212.

Division No. 409]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Anderson, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Henderson, Doug


Armstrong, Hilary
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Home Robertson, John


Beckett, Margaret
Hood, Jimmy


Bell, Stuart
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hoyle, Doug


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Ingram, Adam


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Buckley, George J.
Kirkwood, Archy


Caborn, Richard
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Leighton, Ron


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Litherland, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Livsey, Richard


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clay, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Clelland, David
McAllion, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAvoy, Thomas


Coleman, Donald
McCartney, Ian


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McFall, John


Corbett, Robin
McKelvey, William


Corbyn, Jeremy
McLeish, Henry


Cousins, Jim
McWilliam, John


Crowther, Stan
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cummings, John
Marek, Dr John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Meacher, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Dobson, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Douglas, Dick
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morgan, Rhodri


Eadie, Alexander
Morley, Elliot


Eastham, Ken
Mowlam, Marjorie


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mullin, Chris


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Murphy, Paul


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mellist, Dave


Fatchett, Derek
O'Brien, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Parry, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Patchett, Terry


Flannery, Martin
Pendry, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Fraser, John
Prescott, John


Fyfe, Maria
Primarolo, Dawn


Galloway, George
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Randall, Stuart


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Redmond, Martin


Gould, Bryan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Richardson, Jo


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Robertson, George


Grocott, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)





Rowlands, Ted
Wall, Pat


Salmond, Alex
Wallace, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wareing, Robert N.


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Short, Clare
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Brian


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Strang, Gavin



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Allan McKay and Mrs. Llin Golding.


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)



Turner, Dennis





NOES


Adley, Robert
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Alexander, Richard
Evennett, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Fallon, Michael


Amos, Alan
Favell, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Ashby, David
Fookes, Dame Janet


Atkins, Robert
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bendall, Vivian
Franks, Cecil


Bevan, David Gilroy
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
French, Douglas


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George


Boswell, Tim
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Peter
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carttiss, Michael
Irvine, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Chapman, Sydney
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chope, Christopher
Knapman, Roger


Churchill, Mr
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knowles, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knox, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lang, Ian


Colvin, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan


Conway, Derek
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lightbown, David


Couchman, James
Lilley, Peter


Cran, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lord, Michael


Curry, David
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Day, Stephen
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dicks, Terry
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Dorrell, Stephen
Maclean, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dunn, Bob
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Durant, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Dykes, Hugh
Mans, Keith


Emery, Sir Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)






Mates, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Maude, Hon Francis
Shelton, Sir William


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Mills, Iain
Shersby, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sims, Roger


Mitchell, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Monro, Sir Hector
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Speller, Tony


Morrison, Sir Charles
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Squire, Robin


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Neubert, Michael
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stevens, Lewis


Norris, Steve
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stokes, Sir John


Page, Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Paice, James
Sumberg, David


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Summerson, Hugo


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Porter, David (Waveney)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Price, Sir David
Thurnham, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Rhodes James, Robert
Tredinnick, David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Trotter, Neville


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waller, Gary


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Ward, John


Rost, Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Warren, Kenneth


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wheeler, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilkinson, John





Wilshire, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Winterton, Mrs Ann



Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Noes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Greg Knight and Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Woodcock, Dr. Mike



Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 26 October, I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales saying that he would place in the Library copies of undertakings for the purpose of section 20(5)(b) of the Water Act 1989 and relaxations granted under regulations 4(1)(c) and 4(2) of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989. Yesterday I was promised that that information would be in the Library today. It still is not there. I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can obtain it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The matter has nothing to do with the business that we are about to consider. Indeed, it has nothing to do with the Chair. I hope that it has been noted by the Department concerned.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) say that the Government were using the opportunity of Prorogation day to release certain information, without us knowing. The Government said that they had not got the information to the printers on time. Another planted question was raised. It all shows that the Government are now a total shambles—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. We must proceed with the business of the House.

Orders of the Day — Bovine Somatotropin

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8975/89 relating to bovine somatotropin; and supports the Government's policy that the basis for authorising such products must be a thorough, scientific appraisal to confirm their safety.
I shall begin by outlining the Community proposal which we are discussing tonight. It deals with the synthetic hormone, bovine somatotropin—which I will abbreviate to BST, to avoid future risk—which can increase the milk yield of dairy cows. It would allow trials to continue at national level and objective scientific evaluation of the data obtained, both by independent experts in member states and by a parallel expert committee of the European Community.
The Commission maintains that the proposal does not bring into question the current system of evaluation. First, it would require member states not to authorise the commercial use of BST before 1991. Secondly, it would require the Commission to report in more detail to the Council, with proposals if necessary, by 1 October next year. Frankly, we do not know what proposals the Commission has in mind, and we suspect that it does not either.
The present proposal has been put forward by the Commission under article 43 of the treaty. It has been referred to the Economic and Social Council and to the European Parliament for opinion. The ECOSOC's report is awaited. The Parliament will not take this proposal before December, if then, and the Council will thereupon act upon a qualified majority but may be able to give a formal endorsement following discussions at the level of COREPER.
Bovine somatotropin is a single chain polypeptide—amino acids which are building blocks for protein—produced by the pituitary gland in all cows. It is both a protein and a hormone. In lactating cows the normal action of BST is to divert more of the animal's food intake to milk production.
The same effect occurs with the administration of synthetic BST, which can now be manufactured by the same genetic engineering processes which have made it possible to produce commercial quantities of insulin, of AIDS-free blood factor 8, arid of interferon, which is a valuable drug against certain forms of cancer.
Because it is a protein, BST is broken down by digestive mechanisms, and it must be administered by injection. Both chemically and biologically, BST is very different from the growth-promoting hormones banned under European Community and United Kingdom legislation. It has no hormonal action in man. All studies have failed to demonstrate such action in man. Some work was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s to discover whether BST would be effective in overcoming dwarfism in humans. It failed.
As for the framework for approval in the United Kingdom, synthetic BST falls within the legal definition of a medicinal product. It is therefore subject to the controls set down in the Medicines Act 1968. The Act exists to protect public and animal health by ensuring that no product may be marketed in the United Kingdom until all

data relating to its safety, quality and efficacy—the trinity upon which the scientific advice depends—have been thoroughly scrutinised by qualified scientists and found to be satisfactory. Only when all the data have been evaluated, and the company has provided full and satisfactory answers to any questions which arise during the scrutiny, can a licence be issued.
Although quality and human safety data can be worked up in a laboratory, it is often not possible for companies to provide data on efficacy and animal safety without conducting field trials, which must be authorised under the Medicines Act 1968. This authority, known as an animal test certificate, is issued only when the quality and human safety data permit scientists to draw the firm conclusion that trials may be conducted safely. This conclusion may be drawn for BST, and field trials are currently being undertaken in the United Kingdom and a number of other countries in Europe, including France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, and in the United States.
In the United Kingdom, BST products are currently undergoing trials and assessment. The trials have been running for about four years. A maximum of just over 1,000 cows on up to 10 sites have been involved, although far fewer are normally involved at any one time. For example, on 8 November, 56 cows on four sites were being treated with manufactured BST. The milk from the trials is sold in the normal way through the Milk Marketing Board, which pools it with other milk. On 8 November, which was a typical day, it accounted for less than a hundredth of 1 per cent. of total milk supply.
While the scientific standards to be applied are increasingly governed by Community rules—assessment falls under directive 81/851, for example—responsibility for licensing decisions rests with the national licensing authority, in this case Agriculture Ministers.
Why has the Commission made this proposal? Its answer, to judge by its accompanying report to the Council and Parliament, is that time is needed to look at the other aspects of BST use which are not currently being considered as part of the licensing process. The Commission wants to look at the social and economic implications of widespread BST use, should a product licence be issued. It wants to examine the impact on the structure of the dairy industry and the wider implications for the rural economy. It also wants to look at the market impact, if there were to be a reaction by consumers against the use of synthetic BST in cows producing the milk they drink.
These are important questions, even if they are separate from the safety, quality and efficacy criteria in the licensing process. Some argue that they should form the basis of a so-called fourth criterion in that process. That implies a similar, scientific assessment against agreed objective standards. As far as I know, however, no such further test has successfully been formulated.
The social and economic concerns relate essentially to the impact of BST on the structure of the dairy industry and farming generally. The consequences of licensing BST could be widespread, as the Commission has noted in forwarding this proposal. Increases in milk yields and declines in dairy cow and calf numbers could trigger adjustments across the industry. Much depends on the assumptions made—for example, about how cost-effective BST would be and the extent of its uptake by milk producers.
Depending on those assumptions, it could be further argued that there would be a differential effect on larger and smaller dairy farmers. Hon. Members will know that small farmers are one of the current preoccupations of Brussels. If BST were nevertheless assumed to be attractive to those who produce and market milk, it might also be maintained that its availability in some parts of the Community and not others would confer unfair advantages on farmers in areas where it is available.
To put all this in perspective, however, we should note how matters have already developed in the dairy industry, without any help from BST. In the United Kingdom, milk yield per cow increased by 27 per cent. from 1970 to 1988, and by 2 per cent. after 1984, when quotas were introduced.
There are understandable concerns which go back long before the issue of BST. We have to recognise that there are very few firm facts on which to base calculations and projections. They quickly give way to an essentially subjective forecasting exercise. In the process, it is not easy to isolate the impact of any one factor, such as BST, from all the others, such as breeding developments and improved feeding techniques, which contribute far more to developments in the dairy sector.
The Government take the view that objective scientific evaluation is the only reliable basis for taking action in the veterinary medicines sector. Some questions which fall outside the objective licensing process are legitimate, but answers to them should be found in the political arena and within the scope of policies relating to agricultural production and marketing.
The second group of concerns are those expressed by consumers, and they clearly deserve the closest possible consideration. The licensing process, which I have outlined, already addresses many of those concerns, but there is a broader issue here to be faced by those developing and using high technology in consumer-sensitive areas, such as food production. It is for them to accept responsibility for informing and advising their intended customers. In establishing consumer safety, the Government are directly and intimately involved. The standards applied within our licensing system are rigorous in the extreme, as I shall show.
When applications for authority to conduct trials into BST were considered, the Veterinary Products Committee looked carefully at the data concerning consumer safety and at the possibility that synthetic BST might affect the milk we drink. Milk is not a standard product. It contains many different substances and natural hormones, including BST, most of them in minute, but variable, quantities. The evidence examined by the Veterinary Products Committee showed that use of manufactured BST could lead in some circumstances to an increase in the amount of those substances that was present in milk, although the increases were very small and the amount of the substances remained within the normal range of variability. The substances concerned are milk fat, biotin, which is an essential vitamin, IGF1, which is a natural hormone involved in milk production, and BST itself.
The Committee considered that field trials involving the small number of animals I have already mentioned would pose no risk to consumers. Milk from the trials was compositionally and nutritionally within the normal range

of variability. However, because some members of the committee have retired and others have been appointed since that conclusion was reached, I recently asked the committee to review the evidence afresh. It came unanimously to the same conclusion, and had it not been satisfied on that point, the field trials would not have been authorised and allowed to continue.
Now that the Committee is looking at applications to issue product licences for two BST products, it is considering the implications should BST become widespread. Milk from treated cows might then, potentially, provide half or more of the total supply. In line with that cautious approach, the VPC has sought advice from the Department of Health on the nutritional and health implications of such a development, and its advice is expected soon. With or without the present Commission proposal, there will be no licensing of BST until all objective concerns about consumer safety have been resolved. We are being just as exhaustive in evaluating any possible animal welfare problems.
Companies must know that, if a product is not safe, they will not be allowed to market it. Conversely, they should know that if a product is safe, they will be allowed to market it and to see whether it meets acceptance in the marketplace. Without such an assurance, the industry will cease to invest in the development of new products and it will certainly hesitate before making investments in the European Community. The Government believe firmly in the principle of taking licensing decisions on scientific evidence related to safety, quality and efficacy.
The incentive or disincentive effects of decisions in these matters are not easily confined to a single area of research. We have to bear in mind the potential effects, especially in other parts of the human and veterinary medicines industry, which is both a provider of new medicines and a significant employer. The wider effects also extend to international trade. Unilateral action taken on disputed scientific grounds or mere political expediency can, as experience with the beef hormone problem has shown, jeopardise progress towards better trading relations in the agricultural sector.
The scientific discipline of the licensing system is adapted to meet the objective concerns that are expressed about products such as BST. I have acknowledged that there are wider issues and concerns that are not—and cannot be—resolved in that way, but which deserve study. The Commission plans to follow this up and we shall take a close interest in its findings. The decisions to be taken, however, must be based firmly on the facts. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Ron Davies: On 28 November last year I tabled an early day motion calling on the Government to impose a ban on the non-therapeutic use of BST. It was supported by 117 members, mainly but not exclusively, Labour Members. On 29 November the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) tabled a similar motion calling for a ban on the use of BST in the United Kingdom which was supported by 66 Members, mainly, but not exclusively, Conservatives. That cross-party expression of opinion in the House reflects widespread public concern about and opposition to the use of BST in Britain's dairy herds.
In contributing to this latest chapter of the debate on BST I shall mention one incident in the debate's history which helps to put the Government's position in perspective. The incident was reported in the Farmers' Weekly on 15 July 1988 under the banner headline, "Gummer in Big BST Row". it took place when the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
This evening the Minister had made great play of the fact that he and his Department will be guided, if not bound, by scientific evidence. Before the scientific evidence on which the case for BST has been based had even been collected, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal went on television to say:
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of any kind saying that BST is in any sense dangerous.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The right hon. Gentleman is a member of the Synod.

Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend has said, the right hon. Gentleman may be a member of the Synod of the Church of England, but in this outburst he was implicitly laying claim to the prophetic powers of Isaiah. The right hon. Gentleman's big BST row was a classic example of speaking out of turn. His comments were described as intolerable by an outraged member of the Veterinary Products Committee, the very organisation charged with deciding the issues upon which the Minister had so definitively commented. Were the VPC a court of law—it has a quasi-judicial role in product licensing—the right hon. Member would have been in contempt of court by now for speaking on a matter that was sub judice and might, even now, have delighted us all by thinking holy thoughts in gaol.
However, both the right hon. Member and BST are still before us and the VPC is still conducting its deliberations. The same scientist who was outraged by the Minister's comments last year repeated in an article in The Guardian on 6 October this year:
BST … is a potential health risk to humans and its use should not he allowed.
The same scientist who was appointed by the Government and was a distinguished member of the VPC, continued:
Assurances from Ministers that BST … is safe to drink in milk cannot be justified. The trials prove nothing about its potential dangers to human health and are now ethically questionable.
The risk people face in drinking small amounts of BST-milk over a short period of time (during the experiments) is no measure of the risk faced by the whole population drinking nothing but BST-milk once it were approved".
We are still awaiting the final adjudication from the VPC on whether BST meets the trilogy to which the Minister referred and is safe, efficacious and pure. We do know, however, despite the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act, that the committee has already, on several occasions, refused to grant the product licence.

Mr. Curry: I wish to make it clear that members of that committee do not sign the Official Secrets Act but are bound by certain rules of confidentiality which stem from the Medicines Act 1968. The scientist to whom the hon. Gentleman constantly referred voted for the continuation of these trials. It was a unanimous decision.

Mr. Davies: I am glad that the Minister is so well briefed he knows the name of the scientist to whom I refer. Perhaps he will give us a guarantee that the scientist, whose

term of office expires this December, will not be sacked for breaking the conditions imposed on him under the Medicines Act. Will the Minister guarantee that scientists who have made public statements on the safety of BST will not be sacked?

Mr. Curry: No scientist is sacked if he acts within the law. The only rules of confidentiality that are imposed are those that relate to the Medicines Act. There is no question of the Official Secrets Act being used. Where we consider membership, we shall do so on the merits and not on any extraneous factor.

Mr. Davies: The Minister has started to dig himself a deep hole. In the early part of his speech, he was making it clear that the European Community would have to consider other factors. I am satisfied that when the EC comes to make a decision on BST, it will refuse it—for reasons of convienience and in the light of all the analysis of the welfare arguments and the socio-economic arguments to which the Minister alluded—regardless of whether BST meets the trilogy of conditions—safety, efficacy and quality. The Minister will then have to explain to the various chemical companies how he is taking decisions almost on an ad hoc basis when the products have been submitted to the licensing system and approved. That is the problem that the Minister has created for himself, and which he has to resolve if he is to maintain credibility.
We already know that distinguished members of the VPC have expressed their grave concerns about the safety and efficacy of the product. We also have the benefit of knowing the opinion of the Council of Ministers. When it discussed the issue at length in June of this year, the Minister's predecessor was in the lonely position which has become so familiar to British Conservatives when meeting our European partners. He was alone in speaking against the proposal to refuse a licence to BST. All the other 11 Ministers agreed that the British Government's view was the wrong one.
The opposition to the use of BST shown by the Council of Ministers is shared by consumers and farmers. The National Farmers Union has made crystal clear its view on this issue. At its annual meeting in February, the depth of grassroots feeling against BST forced the union to abandon its policy of fence sitting and take a strong line against BST. The majority view among farmers has become the official view of the NFU. That view is shared by the Farmers Union of Wales, the Scottish union, and the Women's Farming Union. Representing the consumer-producer nexus, the Milk Marketing Board opposed the use of BST. Several large retail outlets, including Tesco, Marks and Spencer and the Co-op have all stated that they will not stock BST-produced milk.
One solution to the vexed question of consumer attitudes to BST has been advanced by the president of the Dairy Trade Federation, Mr. Andrew Dare. Speaking shortly after his appointment in June of this year, he proposed:
Producers who decide to use this technology must be prepared to segregate their milk and label it accordingly. The consumer will then have the choice of whether to buy it or not.
Mr. Dare is managing director of St. Ivel. He will know as well as any one in the dairy industry that his suggestion is impracticable and would preclude the commercial use of BST. I dare say that that is his intention.
Both producers and retailers know that much of the esteem in which milk and other dairy products are held comes from their justified reputation for being fresh, pure, natural and unadulterated. They realise the enormous damage that would be done to that reputation, and their livelihoods, if BST were authorised. With authorisation, but without labelling, all milk would be under the cloud of "BST-produced".
Last week, in one of his many TV interviews on the subject of lead contamination in milk, the Minister said:
I am committed to safety first, and therefore I have taken these very important measures even before we have any evidence, and if I turn out to have over-reacted that seems to me the way the public would like it".
It is a pity that the Minister does not apply that principle more consistently. Producers, manufacturers, retailers, consumers, scientists and welfarists are all agreed that too much is at stake. We are not asking the Minister to overreact but to demonstrate his commitment to safety first.
In countering the preponderant view against its product, the pro-BST lobby has put out highly tendentious propaganda on consumer opinion surveys undertaken on its behalf by reputable market research organisations. One good example was the claim by one of the companies involved in secret trials of BST that because a large majority of the sample had not heard of the hormone, that suggested a lack of consumer concern. What is did not reveal was the attitude of those people who had heard of BST. To claim that because a group of people are ignorant of an issue means that they would be unconcerned if they had heard of it is patently dishonest. I suggest that it does more harm than good to the case for BST.
Mendacious though that claim may be, it is small beer compared with a claim by one representative of the same company. The European marketing manager of Monsanto, Mr. Robert Deakin, speaking at a conference on genetic engineering, referred to those of us who object to the use of BST as "gastronomic terrorists". To my knowledge, that adds a new term to the salesman's lexicon. However, to judge by BST's progress, it has not been notably successful as a popularising catchphrase.
We have seen that, over-hyped Ministers and drug companies apart, the consensus on BST is against its use. I am against the motion not only because I share that majority view but because I am also of the opinion that there must be some consideration of the likely impact of new, sometimes ethically questionable, developments in veterinary science before we give them the green light.
It might help the Minister to know that Lord Plumb, former president of both the NFU and the European Parliament, said in a recent speech to the British Veterinary Association that the debate has moved on from whether there should be a fourth criterion, to the position where it would be "part and parcel" of future licensing. Therefore, he said, referring to the veterinary profession:
The profession must now work to ensure that the so-called 'fourth hurdle' is as close to scientific evidence as possible".
That is the question to which the Minister should address himself tonight.
The present procedure results in the future of drugs such as BST being determined on political grounds, not on the scientific grounds that the Minister argued. If the

Minister doubts that, he is at odds with his predecessor who was able to agree with his EC counterparts at the June Council meeting that
the decision on the future use of BST was a political issue".
That was reported in the Agra Europe report on 23 June.
Like it or not, that is the position. It seems that the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did like it, for in spite of his later protestations to the contrary, on a visit to a Scottish research foundation in March of this year, he said:
If an application for a BST licence lands on my desk it will have to go through the most rigorous assessment, including evidence of need, by both the appropriate scientific committee and the European Community".
That is a far cry from the case that the Minister made tonight, when he said that BST must merely meet the three scientific criteria. His predecessor acknowledged that there had to be an assessment of need before he would grant a product licence. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what has changed—apart from the incumbent in office—between the decision of his predecessor in March, demanding, requiring and insisting, using his authority as Minister, that there would be an assessment of need, and the present Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of the Government's view that there must be merely the meeting of those three scientific criteria.
If the Minister is now taking a different view, that is between him and this right hon. Friend; but the reality is that this decision is going to be a political one. We must ensure that all concerned know the basis on which it is taken so as to remove as much as possible the uncertainty facing those who develop new veterinary products.
The Government claim that these issues should be decided only on the basis of assessment by scientific criteria because, among other things, that allows the pharmaceutical companies to know where they stand. This position is fundamentally contradicted by paragraph 11 of the MAFF explanatory memorandum on the EC legislation that is before us, which states:
In the United Kingdom's view the decision whether to authorise BST or not should be taken on the established criteria. The other non-scientific issues including economic implications should be addressed outside the licensing system".
Is it now the Minister's position that there must be an assessment on the basis of scientific criteria, that a decision will then be taken to license the product but that there will be a further evaluation—presumably as part of a political debate—to determine whether that product can be sold, even though it has been granted a product licence? We must draw that conclusion from the Minister's remarks and from his Department's explanation of the EC document.
What on earth does it mean? It appears to mean that licensing should take place under existing procedures, but that another evaluative mechanism should be established whereby it is decided on political grounds whether, if a product has been granted a licence, the manufacturers should be permitted to sell it.
Companies that have been involved in producing BST, and those investing in other artificial growth promoters and hormones, will not take kindly to that prescription, for it is a recipe for the political uncertainty which the Minister claims he wishes to avoid. Indeed, what could inject more uncertainty into the minds of the corporate strategists and research scientists?
If the Government concede that matters other than the purely scientific are to he considered—that is the implication of paragraph 11—surely it is best to incorporate those into the licensing procedures, rather than make the manufacturers jump through two hoops instead of the existing one?
But do the Government concede that non-scientific criteria should be considered? The Minister's predecessor's comments showed that, when he was at MAFF, they did. However, paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum says:
The current procedure offers to companies the assurance that the considerable investment they make to develop new products will not be wasted as a result of Government action except on firm scientific grounds.
If we take paragraph 11 at face value—the one that says that non-scientific issues should be addressed, but outside the licensing system—nothing could be further from the truth.
Are we to believe paragraph 10 or paragraph 11? Because the Government should come clean and minimise the uncertainty facing pharmaceutical innovation, we think that the socio-economic and environmental criteria should be incorporated into the licensing system. We support the fourth criterion, because we appreciate that it is already a factor in the European deliberations and because we want the procedure to be above board and transparent.
We support the fourth criterion because it is necessary to evaluate the wider effects of new products. In the words of the MAFF explanatory memorandum:
The authorisation of BST and other comparable products for use in livestock could have a significant effect on productivity with potentially far-reaching implications for production techniques and socio-economic structures in agriculture.
The Minister, in his memorandum, recognises that, yet he refuses to accept the logic of the explanation which his Department has offered.
Given that premise—and I entirely agree with it—it would be irresponsible and negligent in view of the responsibilities that MAFF has to those already in dairying if the socio-economic and environmental impacts of permitting the use of biotechnology were not assessed. Since those effects have to be considered, it would be better that they were examined under a fourth criterion as part of the licensing system, rather than in an ad hoc manner after a licence has been granted.
What could be more undermining of the confidence of the pharmaceutical research establishment than the Government choosing this sort of ad hockery rather than a clearly enunciated and comprehensible fourth criterion? To quote the director of the Commission division responsible for free trade after 1992:
It should be possible for firms to know in advance what regulatory framework a new product will be subjected to. The Community should play the game according to a strict and fixed set of rules; it's a little hard on the manufacturer if the goal posts are moved while the game is in progress".
The European Parliament has called for an examination of BST on the grounds of safety, quality and efficacy. It called on the Commission to examine the consequences of the use of BST and consider inter alia the necessity for additional criteria such as social and economic factors. That is the view which the Opposition support and, therefore, we do not endorse the Government's view on the document.

Mr. John Greenway: I do not wish to detain the House at this late hour. My hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) have espoused most of the arguments, but two issues need to be addressed: first, the principle of scientific advice and the priority that that should play in the licensing system; and, secondly, the public reaction to the use of certain medicinal and therapeutic products. The Government are right to pursue the principle that the first priority must be to make scientific advice paramount. Subjective factors should not cloud scientific facts when it comes to licensing.
There is a problem with the fourth criterion, and I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Caerphilly said about that. I understand that many farming elements are unhappy about parts of the criterion, and that is something that we shall need to discuss long after this debate. There are dangers, however, in using socio-economic factors when assessing the efficacy of medicinal and therapeutic products. There are dangers especially when we are dealing with the emotive issue of hormones.
There is a public aversion to some scientific applications in the food chain, especially those involving hormones. Milk production is especially sensitive. The hon. Member for Caerphilly was right to draw attention to the benefits that accrue either to the farmer or the consumer, but that is not the primary issue. We have scientific advice, which has been updated in recent weeks, that the results of the trials and tests are safe. I am concerned about the public aversion and its impact on the consumption of milk and dairy products. As the Government have said, as long as a product is safe, it should be for the producer to decide. Such is the nature of the marketing of milk and dairy products, however, that while one producer may decide against the use of BST, another may opt in favour of it. It is difficult, nay impossible, for the customer to know whether any of the milk that he or she consumes could have been involved with BST.
That may leave the customer with one option, and that is not to buy milk or dairy products. That could be disastrous for some farmers. It is a great pity that the BST issue has forced the Government to highlight their efforts—sensible, in my view—to resist EC moves to over-use socio-economic factors to overrule scientific advice on the licensing system for medicinal products. I hope that the trials that are taking place will end soon. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to tell the House of the time scale that is envisaged for the continuation of the trials. When they are completed I hope that most farmers will decide against the use of BST. If the priority of agriculture is to restore and retain the confidence of the consumer in the purity of the product, it must be responsive to the genuine concerns of the public, ill informed or misinformed though they sometimes are. The industry must avoid the unnecessary use of medicines and therapeutic applications that create uncertainty or alarm.
It is inevitable that consumer watchdogs will delve into and exploit in whatever way they can the use of BST and hormones in the preparation of milk and dairy products, should some farmers decide to use them. The hon. Member for Caerphilly clearly said that the National Farmers Union has come out strongly against the use of BST, and if most farmers decide against its use, that will


vindicate the Government's position. There is a case for saying that we must support the principle that scientific advice and evidence should be given first, but that farmers must decide whether to use a product in their farming practices. If scientific advice says that something is safe, it is up to them to decide whether to use it.
The vast majority of farmers will want nothing to do with BST. If consumers and retailers want clear evidence that BST has not been used in the preparation of the milk products bought in their shops, the milk marketing board and other organisations involved in the supply of milk will have to come to terms about that with their producers.
I support what my hon. Friend said, with the caveat that we want the trials to end soon. The use of BST could fundamentally undermine the recovery of our milk and dairy industries.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) for a fourth criterion as part of the licensing system for products such as BST. That criterion must be the ethical and environmental effect of such products.
I shall go further and suggest that the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968 under which BST was tested are entirely inappropriate for a completely commercial product such as this, and ethical and social factors should be considered before animal test certificates are granted for a product which by no stretch of the imagination could be called a medicine. Such considerations should stand apart from those of safety, quality and efficacy. But in this case there are serious question marks over safety, too. For instance, we are told that the genetically engineered hormone is identical to naturally occurring BST, but to which one? At least four occur within the cow.
What about the spare amino acids in the genetically engineered version? Some versions contain up to eight different amino acids along the chain of the genetically engineered version.
Potentially the most worrying factor is this: what possible control does a producer have over the genetic variability of a fermenter containing billions of E. coli organisms—except the crude measurement of the efficiency of the hormone produced? It is entirely possible that spontaneous mutations may occur in the E. coli organisms used in a fementer, which may lead to the production of a version of BST which, though still biologically active, may be very different in structure and long-term effect. That question cannot be satisfactorily answered with the present state of technology.
The other concern that must be considered is the animal's welfare. To say the least, it is somewhat hypocritical of the Minister to acquiesce with the EC in the pre-slaughter injection of papain, a practice which he claims is not inhumane, and yet not act on BST injections in cattle.
We have created by artificial selection cattle which have naturally high levels of BST by breeding for milk production, and now we are considering subjecting them to a massive increase in the levels of that hormone. That must mean an unnatural strain on the animal's physiology. Something must give, and I suspect that in the long term it will be the animal's health.
The documents that we are considering, by establishing a further evaluation period, and the Select Committee's report, tacitly recognise the yawning gap in the procedure for evaluating novel products created by genetic recombinant techniques, and the use of such products for purely commercial aims.
When all the factors are properly taken into account, the use of BST will be prohibited and any future products should have their ethical and social effects considered before even trials are permitted.

Mr. Michael Stern: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) in his doubts about the use of the procedure laid down in the Medicines Act 1968 in evaluating BST. It is generally accepted that the Government have acted with complete responsibility in applying the stringent criteria of that Act to the product. I doubt whether any European nation would be able to show a better record than the Government in the full and proper evaluation of BST.
My concern is not whether the product will be fully evaluated—I share the Minister's doubts about whether a fourth criterion is necessary in determining whether the product should be used—my doubt is in a rather more specific area. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that consumers had been ill-informed or misinformed on the nature of the product. Neither description is entirely accurate. The problem is that consumers have not been informed at all.
I represent a constituency of milk consumers. To the best of my knowledge, I do not represent one milk producer. But when a rumour developed in my constituency that one of 10 sites in which BST was being tested was close to Bristol and that the milk was being sold in Bristol, it was impossible to obtain a confirmation or denial.
If a product is being tested under the stringent provisions of the Medicines Act, we owe it to the consumers of that product to tell them that either there is no possibility of the product entering the milk they buy, or there is such a possibility.
I accept my hon. Friend the Minister's assurance that the possibility is slight, but however slight it is, we add nothing to the product's credibility by being seen to hide whether that possibility exists.
Despite the EC document and the Minister's comment that testing in Britain has probably been more stringent than elsewhere, he has nevertheless done considerable damage to his case by acting in what might be called a paternalistic way and refusing to inform consumers whether they might have been subject to the test.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I do not know how many hon. Members have milked cows frequently, but I have milked hundreds. At the hour of the morning when we often finish our debates, many people are starting to milk their herds.
We cannot ignore the background of Britain's dairy industry. The average yield of the 3 million dairy cows that we are considering is 5,500 litres per cow, and we are told that the application of BST will increase that yield by anything from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. A potential increase to over 6,000 litres per cow will leave farmers with


some difficult choices, given milk quotas: they must either go for increased yield and BST, or cut the number of cows that they possess. The implications of that are considerable, especially for small farmers. The implications of milk going over quota, and of increased milk production EEC-wide, are particularly serious, in view of the agony of the milk producers who have gone out of production over the past four or five years, and the 20 per cent. drop in United Kingdom milk production.
The core of the argument, it seems to me, is whether BST will be granted a product licence under the three criteria advanced by the Minister tonight. Will he, indeed, take on board the fourth criterion of economic and socio-economic factors? These are difficult problems for him to wrestle with. In his opening speech, he appeared to discount that fourth criterion, but I think that he was unwise to do so.
The Government's narrow view contrasts with the wider view of the European Community. The Commission's report to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament states:
the Community's approach is to be based on the fullest awareness of all the implications.
Most member states are very hesitant about the authorisation of BST; by contrast, the United Kingdom is regarded as an easy option for a way into Europe for the pharmaceutical companies, as it is the only member state to have allowed BST to be collected and sold unmarked. Why is that the case?
There is concern at the fact that existing techniques do not permit the ready identification of BST in dairy products, because the BST exists naturally in milk. That must give us cause for doubt. Research is currently under way at the university of Munich with the object of finding a method of identifying the hormone in milk in the first place. It is very serious that we cannot do that now, and label it appropriately. BST, if it is to be allowed at all, should not be allowed until such a method is found; otherwise there will be no opportunity for consumer choice. If the method is found, dairy products from BST-treated cattle should be labelled as such.
Concern has also been expressed at the statement by the London Food Commission that artificial BST has one or more extra amino acids at one end of the molecule. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) went fully into the matter, so I shall not repeat the argument.
Concern about animal welfare, consequent upon their regular injection, has to be taken into account. There are many questions the answers to which are unknown. What effect will BST have on reproductive performance, on the incidence of mastitis in cows and on calf growth? Will there be an increase in metabolic diseases as a result of BST injection? We do not know the answers to those questions. The Minister said that trials are still taking place. When they have been completed I hope he can give hon. Members answers to all those questions.
As for the socio-economic factors, especially those that relate to small farmers, the Commission's report says that if one assumes that the Community's milk quota regime continues beyond 1992, the use of BST should be reflected in a reduction in the number of cows rather than in an increase in overall milk production. That is likely to be accompanied by a greater concentration of milk production in the hands of larger milk producers an greater pressure on the quota regime. The effect of BST on small dairy farmers is likely to be bad. That must be taken

into account, particularly in view of the importance of the family farm. Small dairy producers are often the backbone of production in poorer areas.
Consumer groups have expressed grave concern about BST. They echo public mistrust over the use of such products. The European Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, said recently that quotas will continue beyond 1992. However, BST may result in the production of milk beyond the quotas. That would lead to a reduction in the price that producers can obtain for their milk. Quotas are here to stay. It has been reported today that most European Community countries are heading for quota surpluses. It is madness, therefore, to administer something that will increase milk production by between 10 and 20 per cent. when we are attempting to achieve a balance between production and consumption.
The dairy industry as a whole, and small dairy farmers in particular, need BST like a hole in the head. It will lead to even greater surpluses and to retrenchment. Consumers are opposed to the administration of BST, straight down the line. Only the pharmaceutical companies will gain. Unless we take on board the fourth criterion, there will be no proper evaluation of the product.

Mr. Brian Wilson: My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) have made a formidable case against the Government's policies. I intend to step back a little and consider how this debate might be viewed by members of the public. I shall point to the absurdity of what is being discussed at this late hour—a proposal which comes not from the public at large but from a handful of pharmaceutical companies in order to deal with a problem that does not exist.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has referred to the fact that British agriculture is faced with many problems but that a shortage of milk is not one of them. Yet we are seriously discussing with a whole panoply of states surrounding us a highly dodgy product which the pharmaceutical companies have put before us. We are obliged to react to it and, presumably, to approve it. Whatever lip service is paid to the further tests that will take place and the great care that the Government will take, the Opposition do not think much of those assurances and believe that we are already well on the way to product licences being granted by a Government, and particularly a Ministry of Agriculture, that are in the pockets of vested interests.
We are discussing the basis of food quality in Britain in which the consumer takes second, third or fourth place and in which the initiative lies with the vested interests. They state what they want and MAFF supinely follows. This time it is the pharmaceutical companies; at other times it is agribusiness or the food processing industry—all those huge interests pour money into the Conservative party coffers and on some occasions ask for something back.
We are here tonight not because there is a shortage of milk in Britain or because anyone in the House seriously believes that the quality of production will be improved by BST. We are here tonight at the behest of Eli Lilly and Monsanto as they have developed a product for which


they want an outlet and which can be turned into very large profits but the legislative nod is needed from the House and possibly from the European Community.
What would be the impact of BST on rural communities? We know that if it is broadly introduced the yield will be increased by 10 to 20 per cent. The Agra Europe briefing, which is an authoritative document, states:
The resulting increase in profitability would tend to increase the demand for and therefore the price of milk quota and provide a further incentive to the less efficient to give up production. The use of BST would therefore accelerate the trend to fewer dairy farms and larger units which has developed during the last two decades.
If it is Government policy further to depopulate rural areas, to drive more family farms out of business, and in constituencies such as mine to say to dairy farmers, "There is now no place for you because we want to maximise the milk yield and maximise production in the fewest hands," the Minister should say that tonight. If that is not Government policy pressing ahead with the consideration of a product for which there is no consumer demand and no rational demand is totally incompatible with healthy rural communities with people working in manageable units which would be eroded by the extension of BST.
We are debating an initiative from the pharmaceutical companies which the Government appear to be playing along with to a greater extent than other European countries. We see that in the labelling of the products. Why is BST coming on to the market by stealth? If the Government are completely satisfied that there is no risk or danger and that everything is entirely in order, why are there any reservations about saying up front to the consumers of milk that what they are getting contains an element of milk which has been produced with the aid of BST? If that is the Government's view, what is the objection to that?
I believe that it is a fraud on consumers—one of many sponsored by MAFF—to produce in any quantity milk that contains any element of milk produced with BST without telling people precisely what they are getting. It is not good enough to say, "We, MAFF, who have been so wrong on so many other things over the past couple of years, say that there is no danger." According to the Minister, we are engaged on a testing programme to discover the implications of BST, but, at the same time, it is being pushed down the throats of British consumers without the common courtesy of telling them what they are getting, which is indefensible.
There is no demand for increased milk production in Britain. We should be protecting the interests of rural communities and milk producers, but the Government are working at the behest of pharmaceutical companies. We are debating BST at 12.50 am because of the initiative of a couple of pharmaceutical companies, which is against the interests of consumers, against the interests of our future agriculture and against the wishes of rural communities in Scotland, many parts of England and, as we have heard, many parts of Wales.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) tried to square a circle. He expressed doubts and engaged in a bit of hand wringing, but he supports the Government's proposals. If he continues to do so, many dairy producers in his constituency and in the constituencies of other hon.

Members will be in deep trouble. It was a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not oppose the expansion of BST as firmly as did other hon. Members.

Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) represents a constituency in what used to be called Ayrshire. He rightly spoke up clearly on behalf of dairy producers in his constituency and on behalf of consumers who are concerned about the possible commercial use of this product.
My hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) covered many of the detailed arguments against the deployment of this product in the dairy industry in Britain. Under normal circumstances, one would be tempted to ask, "Who on earth supports the use of BST in Britain or anywhere else in Europe?" We have received the answer this evening—the Government and the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). One must pay tribute to their courage, if not their judgment.

Mr. John Greenway: I made no such statement, as the hon. Gentleman will discover when he reads Hansard. I am sorry that he was not listening more carefully. I said that it is unfortunate that the Government are having to face this issue in fighting for the principle of scientific advice being paramount.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is doing a spot of back-pedalling. I shall read his speech, perhaps he should do so and I sincerely hope that milk producers in his constituency will read it.
The hon. Gentleman repeated his key point—that scientific criteria should be paramount. He referred to the medicinal and therapeutic properties of BST. That was his crucial error. BST has no medicinal or therapeutic qualities; it is an artificial stimulant that makes cows produce 10 or 20 per cent. more milk. That is not medicinal or therapeutic but purely economic. The hon. Member should get that point straight.
The hon. Member for Ryedale suggested that farmers will be free to use this product if they want to. Surely he must be living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that it will be so easy for farmers. If this product comes on to the market, the competitive dynamics of the marketplace will compel farmers to take advantage of it. It is important, therefore, that the House and the European Parliament effectively apply the safeguards that the people of Europe and Britain, and the industry, want.
Apart from the hon. Member for Ryedale and the British Government, who wants BST to be brought into commercial use? It certainly is not the consumer—the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) made that point clear. It certainly is not the dairy industry, which would not want it because consumers do not want it. The industry certainly does not want a food scare such as has been experienced elsewhere in that industry. The agricultural industry certainly does not want BST. It was made abundantly clear to the House tonight that the National Farmers Unions in all parts of the United Kingdom opposes the approval of this product.
Who is in favour of BST? Monsanto and Eli Lilly—not exactly the most objective bodies in this debate. They want


the House and the European Community to uphold their commercial right to develop a market for their product. This debate, if it is about nothing else, must be about the balance between a company's right to seek a commercial profit from its investment and the broader interests of the consumer and the agricultural and rural economy. That balance should be struck, but it cannot be done if we keep to the narrow scientific criteria about which the hon. Member for Ryedale talked. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly echoed the powerful case, which has been made by the Opposition, that a fourth criterion—the ethical, or socio-economic, criterion—should be met before such a product can be approved.
One may ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North has asked, why on earth, when there is such an overproduction of milk, have Monsanto and Eli Lilly put such energy into the production of BST? Even without BST, higher yields are likely to make about 400,000 cows redundant in the European Community in the not-so-distant future. These companies are devoting all their expertise to developing a compound to produce even more milk, for which there is no market—a compound that is likely to create great uncertainty and worry in the market.
Why could not those companies have devoted as much energy to producing a veterinary product to deal with the present problems? That is something that the industry and the community need. No, those companies have produced BST and they are hellbent on marketing it and making a profit out of it, regardless of the concerns of consumers, the disruption caused to the industry and a range of other vital considerations.
I put it to the Minister that the narrow criteria of safety, quality and efficacy alone are just not enough. The European Commission is right to take account of the broader criterion of socio-economic factors before sanctioning the use of BST. A precedent was set in a similar industry when the European Community banned the use of hormone growth promoters for beef. We talked about this issue then. There was no evidence that growth promoters in beef had any detectable effect on human beings. On purely scientific grounds, there was no case for a ban, but it was imposed because consumers wanted one. Likewise, consumers want a ban imposed on BST. Just as Governments and the European Community paid heed to consumer concern about hormone growth promoters for beef, they should pay similar heed in this matter.
Monsanto and Eli Lilly have no God-given right to market a product and to make a profit out of a product. They should be within the law. They should act within the constraints of public interest, of which Governments have a duty to take account. We are not talking about a veterinary product. BST has no beneficial therapeutic effects. On the contrary, I should have thought that a regular series of injections into cows has a detrimental effect on animal welfare. We are talking about a specific artificial stimulant which is purely for commercial purposes. That fourth criterion—of socio-economic or ethical considerations—must be adopted for the approval of products of this nature.
We do not intend to divide the House on this issue, although I hope that the Minister has grasped the fact that there is widespread dissatisfaction with his laid-back approach to this case. I think that we can safely depend on our comrades, if we can call them that, in other European countries to out-vote the British Government once again,

and to ensure that common sense prevails and that the industry and consumers will be protected. We live in hope, however, that the Minister will take account of public opinion, even if nobody else in the Government will.

1 am

Mr. Curry: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
It will be a major disappointment to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to know that the Government are perfectly happy to accept the Commission's proposal of a pause for reflection. Indeed, we have already said that. We are not isolated. The matter is perfectly simple. We believe that there is a clear distinction between the licensing process, which is to determine on scientific grounds whether a product is safe, and the political decision whether to accept those results.
We have made it perfectly plain that we accept that there are legitimate concerns about the implications of this product, other than on grounds of safety. Its safety will be determined by the Veterinary Products Committee when it has completed its investigations. It faces many questions. Without any Commission intervention, we would not be able to license this product before at least this time next year. No delay is being imposed. These processes must be gone through exhaustively before we can grant a licence.
We draw a clear distinction between the scientific process and whether, politically, we want to buy the product. That does not cause me the slightest embarrassment. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that the Government will be embarrassed. If the Commission makes a proposal, we have to cope with it, just as we had to cope with the proposal on beef hormones. If that is to be quoted as the glorious precedent, I invite the hon. Gentleman to conduct a brief tour of inspection of Europe and see the extent to which the proposal is being enforced and the extent to which hormones still appear in beef, greatly to the deception of EC consumers.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister understand that he is now saying that he will take a political, ad hoc decision based almost on a whim and the Government's prevailing political thought? Does he understand how worrying that will be to companies that have committed themselves to substantial investment and which need to know that there is an objective and systematic assessment of products that emerge from their research? Does he accept that our proposal of a fourth hurdle would institutionalise such an arrangement so that the companies involved would know the procedures with which they must comply? Without that, they will be subject to political decisions made on a whim.

Mr. Curry: We are not deciding on a whim. The European Community exists, and the Commission is entitled to make a proposal. If it does that, we cannot simply walk out of the room and say that the whole thing is inconvenient. We have to deal with the proposal. That is not whim but political reality. The burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that he will somehow introduce scientific criteria to measure something—was it social, economic or ethical considerations? It was not quite clear. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he can devise and incorporate a clear, sharp scientific criterion that will let companies know where they stand, his accusation that we


are performing intellectual gymnastics will pale into insignificance next to the extraordinary convolutions that he is going through.

Mr. Ron Davies: I promise that this is my last intervention. The Minister has challenged me to produce a criterion. I challenge the Minister. If I produce one, will he implement it?

Mr. Curry: Like everything the hon. Gentleman produces, I should wish to look at it with great care under a microscope. The reason for that is illustrated by his remarks today. He mentioned labelling, as did some of my hon. Friends, and we must be clear about that. It is a difficult issue because of the problems of the identification of BST. In addition, obligatory labelling would be difficult to enforce, in the same way as the beef hormone ban is difficult to enforce. European Community food law prevents a member state from introducing additional national labelling requirements without Community approval. We believe that the Commission's study could look usefully at the whole matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) emphasised the importance of objective criteria and he also said that there is a genuine dilemma for producers. I agree that there is; nobody denies it. That is entirely the purpose of making a distinction between whether a product should be available purely on health and scientific grounds and whether it will be taken up on any other grounds. He asked when the trials will end. As I have just said, we shall be unlikely to be in a position to license before about 12 months from now because of that a number of questions remain to be asked.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) mentioned several detailed issues about the science of this. If he will permit me, I shall reply to him by letter because his points were extremely complicated. I recognise that he has more scientific background than many hon. Members who discuss this matter and I am willing to reply to him in writing. However, I must point out to him that the Farm Animal Welfare Council raised certain matters which have already been referred to the veterinary products committee as part of the criteria that it will use to assess the safety of this product.
I was grateful for the praise of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) for our record of full and proper evaluation. He said that consumers were not informed at all. We have certain constraints under the Medicines Act 1968, but we have never concealed the fact that milk from the trials goes into the normal supply of milk. I must make it clear to all hon. Members that the only country that does not permit that to happen is the Netherlands. All the other countries in which trials are taking place permit the milk to go unlabelled into the general milk supply. The reason for that is that we were twice advised by the veterinary products committee that that was safe, as the scientists mentioned by the Opposition also advised.

Mr. Allen McKay: The Minister does not realise that consumers worry about what is happening to food production, including our pork production. The only point on which I am certain is that more farmers will vote for us this time than ever before. half my milk farmers have already gone out of business

because of the quotas and the problems that they have caused. We shall have farmyard crack and the consumer will not know whether the product that he is buying contains it or not. Surely at this early stage we should be looking at how we can inform consumers whether they are buying milk that contains BST.

Mr. Curry: I have already made it clear that, as part of the Commission's review, we are perfectly happy for that matter to be looked at. However, we have also made it clear that we should not have authorised even these minute trials to take place were we not convinced by means of an independent body that those trials were perfectly safe. We cannot take advice other than that presented to us by an impeccable body of scientists. I have here the list of the members of the Veterinary Products Committee.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: No, because I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not wish to forgo the pleasure of commenting on them.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) mentioned the social concerns of the small farmer, as I have. I suspect that my constituency is not dissimilar to his. I know what farmers believe on this matter and that is why we have said that we are looking at these other matters, but we do not want them to masquerade as part of the scientific process. We want them to be seen as a separate part of the process. The fourth criterion is for a political decision and I do not want politics masquerading as science because we have seen what has happened in various areas, from fisheries to beef hormones. The real fear for many farmers is that if this permits costs to be cut—there is a case for saying that—it will put pressure on the institutional milk price. I recognise that fear.
There will be careful consideration of all aspects of bovine health, including mastitis. The progeny from treated cows are being assessed from the different lactations of a multi-lactational trial. Therefore, I can give an assurance that those matters are being carefully considered.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) gave me a fleeting reassurance that the Labour party has not been reformed as much as its public relations might indicate that it wanted to. He lifted every phrase straight from the conspirator's handbook. He talked of the highly dodgy product; we were told that we were paying lip service and were in the pockets of the vested interests. In fact, the phrases were lifted not merely from the conspirator's handbook, but from an elderly edition. He should ask the chairman of the VPC, Professor Armour, dean of the school of veterinary medicine at Glasgow university, whether he will subscribe to the description of himself and his team as simply stooges in the pay of the pharmaceutical industry.
We are not forcing this product down the farmers' throats. Nobody is going to ride shotgun on the wagons to force farmers to use this product. We have decided that they should have the choice whether to use it. If they decide to use it, that is their affair. If they decide not to, that is equally their affair.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said that the United Kingdom supports BST. That is not true. I shall not know whether to support it until the VPC has said whether it is a safe product and fulfils the criteria. If it does so and is given a clean bill of


health. I shall clearly support the right for it to be made available. If it is not given a clean bill of health I am equally categoric that it will not be made available because that is the whole purpose of a scientific assessment.
It is not my job to tell Eli Lilly or Monsanto how to spend their money. If they decide to devote it to pharmaceutical research and them come to me and say that they have developed a product which they wish to have assessed, under the Medicines Act 1968 I must submit that product to an evaluation process. I cannot say, "I'm sorry, but the Act is not for you, today," or "We do not like the implications of what you are going to do. Go away."
If I were to take such action and introduce into the assessment process a pseudo-scientific criterior masquerading as science, those companies would not come at all, but would take their business elsewhere which would be to the great detriment of everybody in the United Kingdom and the European Community.
The hon. Member for East Lothian persists in his unwillingness to accept that there is good will among Conservative Members. We have products which we are obliged to assess on the grounds of certain objective criteria. That is the right way to go about this, and it has served us well in the past. The VPC has thrown out the majority of applications that it has assessed this year under these very criteria. Therefore, it is quite right that we should proceed in this way.
In this rough old world in which we live, if the Commission comes forward with a proposal we must react to it. We want the Commission to make that assessment as sensibly and objectively as it can. If we then have to vote upon it, we must do so. If that results in decisions being taken on political grounds, and the Council of Ministers has a majority to make those decisions, that is what will happen. We have already seen it happen with the beef hormone proposal.
We do not want to try to confuse the issue and say that we should move away completely from the principle of the objective assessment of these products. If we do that, we shall rapidly descend into an extremely confused approach to our treatment of future technology. We have not denied this in the past in the United Kingdom or turned our back on it. If we start to do so, we have little future as a country in which technology has a fair home. I do not think that any hon. Member would wish that to happen, which is why I ask the House to support the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8975/89 relating to bovine somatotropin; and supports the Government's policy that the basis for authorising such products must be a thorough, scientific appraisal to confirm their safety.

PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Mr. Secretary Wakeham and Mr. Frank Dobson be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and that Sir Geoffrey Howe and Dr. John Cunningham be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Orders of the Day — Vietnamese Boat People

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. David Alton: At this time in the morning, I am grateful to the Minister for being here to answer the debate.
It is a sad reflection that this brief Adjournment debate is the first opportunity that the House has had to discuss the implications of the shift in Government policy towards the repatriation of Vietnamese boat people. The announcement was made by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) during his brief tenure as Foreign Secretary. During his one Foreign Office Question Time appearance at the Dispatch Box, he signalled the Government's decision to abandon attempts to resettle the 56,718 Vietnamese people in Hong Kong. Instead, involuntary repatriation, compulsory repatriation, mandatory repatriation, or an orderly return programme are to be the cornerstone of our future approach.
If words have any meaning at all, involuntary and mandatory mean forcible. If these are mere euphemisms and Foreign Office code, perhaps the Minister will use this debate to explain exactly what the Government have in mind.
Certainly Mr. Lionel Bloch, Sir Robin Day, Lords Havers and McAlpine of Moffat, and Mr. Gerard Noel, writing inThe Times today are clear enough in their understanding of Government policy. In a brief letter they say:
Sir, why does the British Government not appeal openly and urgently to the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India and members of the EC, to take some of the Hong Kong boat people? Their forcible repatriation would be repugnant to all right thinking people.
Recent events in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in south-east Asia have demonstrated deep contradictions in Government policy. On the very day after the Prime minister, in her Guildhall speech, hailed the march to freedom in Europe, it is worth questioning for a moment our double standards. The Prime Minister, and I agree with her, said:
We should recognise how immensely privileged we are to be living in these historic times, how fortunate to have a share of responsibility for the way events unfold.
As millions of Europeans have flooded across East-West borders, and thousands have decided to stay, no one has suggested as the Under-Secretary of State did in a letter to me on 26 October that
their future can only lie in their own country.
Why is it an historic event when thousands of economic migrants flee from a drab life in East Germany, and a contemporary inconvenience when they flee from Vietnam? How do we reconcile our good fortune in being able to share in the responsibility of the unfolding events in central and eastern Europe while we try to evade our responsibility towards desperate, frightened refugees seeking shelter and sanctuary in a Crown colony?
Even deeper contradictions concern the way in which we screen the Vietnamese migrants and attempt to classify them as economic and political refugees: goats and sheep. Imagine for a moment the worldwide outcry if East Germans had been subjected to the following procedures. Mr. Yan Ji Shieh of Refugee Action—an offshoot of the Save the Children Fund—has provided me with


documentary evidence which the Minister needs to address. Refugee Action says that the language translation available during screening interviews is often wholly inadequate—and is actually conducted in three different languages; interviewees have no chance to prepare themselves and have no representation at the interviews; and a very narrow interpretation is made under the 1951 United Nations convention of what we think constitutes as a refugee.
If an interviewee answers the first question by saying that he wants to make a better life for his family he will automatically be screened out as an economic refugee. Among those who have been screened out, and denied political status, are former soldiers from the south. If they fail to qualify, it is little wonder that very few others get through the net.
Inevitably, any such dubious exercise will never be foolproof and is bound to lead to personally disastrous decisions. Refugee Action says that the atmosphere during interviews is often appalling; and that United Nations High Commission for Refugees officers have witnessed shouting and abuse. I hope that the Minister will say something about the rising tensions within the camps as refugees become more and more desperate. I am sure that he will have seen some of the reports last week concerning some of the events in the camp.
It is surely worth recalling that before these interviews and subsequent refusals, many refugees have spent long years festering in squalid camps. Before that they faced long and harrowing voyages through the perilous South China seas. I have heard first-hand accounts of brutal assaults, rape, and murder as refugees lost everything in their bid for freedom and a better life. It is absurd to suggest that their decision to leave Vietnam was a soft option.
In comparison with Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, which have at times forcibly repelled the boat people, the Hong Kong Government are to be congratulated on their humanitarian policy in acting as a place of first asylum. They have done their best to accommodate successive waves of refugees; but no one who has visited the closed camps can seriously describe the atrocious conditions as anything other than totally and utterly unacceptable. The initial willingness of the western countries to assist in resettlement was overcome in 1986 by a bad case of compassion fatigue. So far in 1989, only 3,393 refugees have been resettled from Hong Kong—a mere 149 in the United Kingdom. Does it not say something about life in Vietnam that, knowing all of this—all the obstacles and impediments that would be placed in their way—the refugees have continued to come?
Here is another contradiction in Government policy. Last night, in another debate, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), explained that the Government's decision to end aid to Vietnam in 1979
was related to Vietnam's policies on human rights, the exodus of boat people and the Cambodian invasion.
He said that Vietnam's international rehabilitation will
need a negotiated settlement, not a trial of strength on the battlefield."—[Official Report, 13 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 51.]
So the Government, in refusing to restore the aid programme, have indicated their abhorrence of the regime

in Vietnam. The irony is that a restored aid programme linked to assisting farmers retain a greater proportion of the rice yield might actually help to end the exodus. Certainly, the British Refugee Council tells me that it favours its urgent restoration.
But the Government cannot have it both ways. If the human rights record is so bad that we cannot give aid, how can we have confidence in what will happen to refugees forced to return there?
Refugee Action says that after 15 years many former civil servants and many members of the army are still in re-education centres, deep in the jungles. It pours scorn on the idea that it will be possible to monitor the long-term retaliatory action taken against people who are forced back. After all, it is still a serious crime to leave Vietnam. And what are we to make of a country that denies freedom of movement, impedes travel overseas, and deters free speech or a free press? Refugee Action has evidence that 1,700 refugees who escaped on the last day of the war and returned in 1975 from Guam all disappeared. One re-escaped and described in detail how he had subsequently suffered.
I help to sponsor an all-party group, the Jubilee Campaign, which campaigns for Christian prisoners of conscience. I can provide the Minister with chapter and verse about Vietnamese prisoners of faith. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Defence is kindly currently sponsoring one such case: that of Nguyen Van Tuoi. In 1983 he was arrested and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. He was assistant to Pastor Ho Hieu Ha, whose church was seized and turned into a Communist Youth League headquarters, and who was sent to jail for eight years. Both are still in detention at Chi Hoa prison in Ho Chi Minh City.
Or there is the case of Father Dominique Tran Din Thu. He was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1987. His sentence was later reduced to 20 years—hardly a concession for an 83-year-old man. He and 15 other priests and monks from his order are now in a re-education camp.
Another priest in prison in Vietnam is Father Joseph Nguyen Cong Doan, the regional superior of the Jesuits. He was gaoled for 12 years in 1981. He had obtained a Communist party document which called
for the extermination of the Church, and principally its bishops and priests.
Amnesty International adds credence to the reports which the Jubilee Campaign has received. In its 1989 report, it lists details of the persecution of Buddhists and the continued detention of prisoners of conscience.
While thinking about these reports, I was struck this morning by an account in The Independent newspaper which described the 1945 decision to send back the Yugoslays to Marshall Tito. Captain Nigel Nicolson yesterday told the court in the Aldington libel action that the refugees
had appealed to us for asylum, which we had granted them. They had come to trust us and now we had to break the trust and send them back to their arch-enemy.
It is not idle fancy to see parallels with the position of the Vietnamese asylum-seekers today.
Surely Ministers can see that involuntary repatriation will lead to vindictive retaliatory acts over which the British Government will have no effective subsequent control. Surely they can see the damage that will be done to our international reputation.
The new Foreign Secretary is a man who knows the value of compassion. Like his West German counterpart, who effectively responded to human need, he should now put his energies into finding a sane and decent solution which does not involve forcible repatriation; 56,000 people are little more than half the number who constitute a capacity crowd at Wembley. It cannot be beyond the wit of the civilised world to resettle them. When the Prime Minister and President Bush meet next week, I hope that Foreign Office Ministers will be urging that the need for a concerted international response based on responsibility and compassion will be high on their agenda.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for raising an issue which has attracted a great deal of attention and which, I have no doubt, will continue to do so. However, I regret the terms in which he raised a number of the issues involved. Frankly, he reported some matters in a way which did not reflect the true position, and I shall deal with some of them.
The issue of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong was discussed nearly two years ago in the Christmas Adjournment debate, and once again in the Christmas Adjournment debate of last year. On both occasions, serious issues were raised by my hon. Friends which were addressed responsibly and realistically by the present Minister of State, Department of Employment, who was then a Minister at the Foreign Office.
It must be clear that this is not an issue which brings pleasure to the Ministers who bear responsibility for it. It is, above all, a human problem which demands a humane and humanitarian response. It is also an issue where the commentaries and some of the commentators have simply not kept up with the pace of the events.
The simple fact is that the situation is now dramatically different from what obtained when the debate took place in late 1987. At that stage, all those Vietnamese who arrived in Hong Kong were deemed to be refugees, whether or not they were so in reality.
The international community had and has responded magnificently to a flow of refugees over many years and it is important to stress that undertakings have been given to resettle every refugee in the west. However, by the middle of 1988, it had become clear that the nature of the exodus from Vietnam had changed. That had begun to emerge as early as 1981. At that stage, a congressional committee in the United States had a staff report which said:
It is true to most observers that the character of the boat people flow has changed, even as it continues relentlessly … from numerous interviews with Vietnamese boat people in the field, especially in Hong Kong, it is clear that a growing number of Vietnamese boat people are risking flight primarily for economic reasons. A classic 'migrant' flow is developing.
That quotation goes back to 1981. Seven years after that it was decided by Hong Kong—I think that its decision was right—that a different approach was necessary. From June 1988, a screening system was instituted. The purpose of this was quite clear: to determine which of those coming to Hong Kong were genuine refugees and which were economic migrants seeking a better life in a more prosperous country.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill has referred to screening, and it is important to understand what it is. It is not a process which is unique to boat people in Hong

Kong; it is a process that is applied worldwide to all those, from whatever country, travelling to whatever country, who claim to be refugees. It must be absolutely apparent that it is essential if civilised countries are to continue to provide new homes for genuine refugees, as they wish to do, that there should be some system for determining who is a genuine refugee and who is not. In truth, the process of screening varies around the world. For example, those seeking to enter the United States from Haiti are subjected to a rudimentary form of scrutiny on board ship before their feet even touch the soil of the United States. Only a tiny number are determined by the authorities to be refugees.
In contrast, the system of screening introduced in mid-1988 in Hong Kong is sophisticated, elaborate and thorough. The procedures were developed not at the whim of the Hong Kong Government but in co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the questions which asylum seekers are asked are based on a questionnaire that is set out by the UNHCR. All interviews—I stress this for the benefit of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill—can be monitored by UNHCR staff.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred disparagingly, I thought, to the fact that the questions are framed in three languages. They are in English, Chinese and Vietnamese, which are the relevant languages. Surely that is a matter for praise rather than disparagement.

Mr. Alton: I was bringing to the Minister's attention the complaint of the organisation that is called Refugee Action, which says that the immigration officer asks the questions from a UNHCR-prepared questionnaire in Cantonese. This is translated by an official Hong Kong Government interpreter into Vietnamese. The refugee's response is translated by the interpreter into Cantonese first and then into English. Notes are taken in English. Interpreters must pass a test, but their knowledge of Vietnamese is often inadequate. Officials often deviate from the questionnaire. That does not correspond with the brief with which the Minister has been supplied.

Mr. Maude: The interviews can be monitored by the UNHCR, which takes a close interest in the process. So far as I am aware, no complaints have been made about the process, which is subject to independent scrutiny. Independent observers can be present, and that is proper. There is no other process of which I am aware which is subject to the same degree of independent scrutiny which is that elaborate, that thorough and that independent. In most instances, the process elsewhere is far more rudimentary. In addition to the interview process, there is a full appeals process, and the UNHCR can help candidates to prepare their appeal.
I have satisfied myself that the screening process that is now in place is both fair and thorough. The results of the screening so far confirm how right it was to institute the procedure. So far, only about 13 per cent. of those arriving in Hong Kong have been determined to be refugees. The remaining 87 per cent.—nearly nine out of 10—are determined, without dispute by the UNHCR, not to be refugees.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill talked about the journey from Vietnam being dangerous and stressful and not an easy option. The bulk of those now arriving in Hong Kong do not set off in a boat from Vietnam to cross the sea unaided. Many of them come by public transport


across the mainland through China and travel only the last five miles by boat. The ones that do travel by boat generally coast hop from port to port. The journey is by no means as dangerous as it was made out to be. I accept that the phrase "Vietnamese bus people" does not have quite the same ring as "Vietnamese boat people", but the mundane reality is that many of those now arriving in Hong Kong are bus people more than boat people.
The need for this process was borne out by the Geneva conference of 1989, which agreed on the comprehensive plan of action, endorsing the principle of first asylum, and recommending measures to guarantee its survival, which might otherwise have been under threat from others from Hong Kong. It is important to stress that this plan of action was and is designed to sustain the policy of first asylum to which Hong Kong is properly committed. These measures were, first, the adoption of screening throughout the region, along the lines of that already being used in Hong Kong.
The problem in Hong Kong was already far more intense than anywhere else in the region, partly as a result of the sheer numbers of boat people, and partly because of the desperate pressure on land in the territory. We should not forget that Hong Kong has 5·7 million people in 400 square miles of extremely mountainous terrain. It was entirely right, therefore, that Hong Kong should, with our full support, have instituted this elaborate and fair system of screening when it did.
As a result, there were two quite distinct problems to be resolved. The first—it has been much muddled by many commentators, including the hon. Gentleman—was how to resettle all who were either deemed or determined to be refugees. On this issue, the conference agreed on the resettlement of all the refugees in the region, with sufficient places pledged by the resettlement countries to guarantee a new home for them all within three years. The United Kingdom has throughout played its full part in this process, and it will continue to do so.
The second, and I stress quite distinct, issue was: what should be the fate of those who were determined not to be refugees? On this second issue, which is what should principally concern us tonight, the conference agreed this:
Persons determined not to be refugees should return to their country of origin in accordance with international practices reflecting the responsibilities of states towards their own citizens. In the first instance, every effort will be made to encourage the voluntary return of such persons.
I stress to the House that that agreement was unanimous. Not a single participant at the June conference in Geneva—not the United States of America, not the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—dissented from that conclusion.
And so there is unanimous agreement throughout the international community that for those Vietnamese in Hong Kong who are not deemed to be refugees, there is and can be nowhere to go but Vietnam. And to those who argue glibly that there should be some great international effort to resettle non-refugees in the West, I say that not a country in the world will agree to it. It has already been tried, and it will not happen. It is dangerous and callous to suggest to people in this position that some great remedy lies around the corner. It does not and will not exist, not because of our decision but because of the unanimous decision of the international community.
The hon. Gentleman drew an analogy with East Germans arriving in West Germany. People can exercise the right of movement between countries only when there are countries that allow them to leave and countries that are prepared to receive them. We strongly support the right of people to leave their country of origin if they choose to, but it must be up to other countries to decide whether to accept them. I am glad that West Germany has decided that it will receive people—that is a matter for the West German Government. But the international community has dwelt at length on this problem and its unanimous conclusion was that no country is prepared to take Vietnamese people who are deemed not to be refugees—

Mr. Alton: Have not the British Government thrown open military bases in West Germany and magnanimously provided places in which East German refugees can stay? Surely that contrasts with the Minister's attitude tonight. I hope that in the time that is left he will face the issue of what will happen to these refugees when they return to Vietnam. How will it be possible to monitor what happens to them? What will become of our international reputation if we are seen to use force to send people back from the refugee camps?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman makes a good comparison. He talks about the British Government making available temporary accommodation in Berlin for people seeking to move. Yes, we have done so—in the same way that, over the years, the Hong Kong Government have made available accommodation at a cost of some £100 million a year; a cost borne jointly by us and by the Hong Kong Government. They have made that accommodation available for people while they are being screened and for those deemed or determined to be refugees pending resettlement. The parallel is an exact one. We shall always accept such obligations in a spirit of generosity.
The problem with the hon. Gentleman's approach is that he seeks to turn that temporary accommodation in Hong Kong into permanent accommodation by denying the only route that the international community has agreed, which is that they should go back to Vietnam.
The issue that we have to face is a stark one which, I regret to say, brooks no equivocation. It is not comfortable and it is not one that any hon. Member would like to have to face, but the issue is whether we are to leave people in closed camps in Hong Kong with no hope of resettlement elsewhere when the international community has unanimously accepted that the only place for them to go is back to Vietnam.
Everyone who has faced the problem and has borne responsibility for its resolution has come to the same conclusion. We have all approached it in the same way, not seeking a convenient solution, not trying to brush the problem away, but testing our decision against the criteria of decency, humanity and justice.
Our conclusion has been that the process of voluntary repatriation has not provided and cannot provide an adequate solution. So far, of the 3,000 people who, after screening, have been determined not to be refugees, only 37, about 1 per cent. have volunteered to return. Faced with the choice of leaving those people in closed camps indefinitely, perhaps in the false hope that resettlement awaits them—a false hope stirred up by the hon.


Gentleman tonight—or returning them in safety and dignity to Vietnam, we have no doubt that we must do the latter.
I strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said on 25 October:
It will soon be necessary to tackle the thorny question of involuntary repatriation."—[Officiai Report,25 October 1989; Vol. 158, c. 828]
That is not a euphemism. "Forcible repatriation" is an emotive term and it should not be used in this context. The process of deportation is used widely throughout the world according to international standards. When a country deports illegal immigrants—that is what these people are—no assurances are sought from the home country on the safety of those returning. No arrangements are usually made for monitoring their condition and safety. But we believe that, because of the concern that has been expressed, it would be wrong for the process to start without assurances from the Vietnam Government that those who return will not be punished or badly treated and, perhaps more importantly, that their conditions after return can be properly and independently monitored.
As I have said, it is exceptional to attach such conditions to the deportation of illegal immigrants; a process, I stress, which happens across the world every

day. The Hong Kong authorities have responded magnificently to a problem the scale of which we may not fully understand from the comfort of Westminster.
In the course of this year, no fewer than 33,000 boat people have arrived, sometimes at the rate of 1,000 a day. But no matter how hard the authorities worked to provide good conditions in the camps, the fact is that all the camps are 50 per cent. over capacity and people and families are living in closed camps and overcrowded conditions.
As I have said, there is nowhere for those people to go other than back to Vietnam and if conditions are unacceptable in those camps, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is all the more shameful that he should be suggesting that they should be made to stay there indefinitely.

Mr. Alton: I am not saying that.

Mr. Maude: No hon. Member believes that the decent and humane solution to the problem is to leave people in the camps, living out their lives in the fading belief that the West will accept them—

The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Two o'clock.